“Send Them to Sambisa” — Shehu Sani’s Fiery Comment Ignites Fresh Debate on How Nigeria Should Confront Terrorism

A fresh wave of controversy and public debate swept across Nigeria on Sunday after former Kaduna Central senator and human rights activist, Shehu Sani, made a provocative statement suggesting that anyone opposed to military strikes against terrorist groups should be transported to some of the country’s most violence-ravaged regions to negotiate peace themselves. The remark, shared via his verified X (formerly Twitter) account, quickly gained traction online, sparking intense reactions across political, civil society, and security circles.

In his post, Sani argued that critics of military action against terrorists should be assembled and sent to the hinterlands of Zamfara and Sokoto states or even the infamous Sambisa forest, once a stronghold of Boko Haram insurgents. According to him, such individuals should be allowed to “preach or talk or negotiate” directly with armed groups to persuade them to stop killing and kidnapping Nigerians. He concluded by stating that opposition to one approach should come with a viable alternative, implying that critics of forceful military action often fail to present practical solutions to Nigeria’s deepening security crisis.

The statement, posted on December 29, 2025, had garnered thousands of views within hours and triggered sharp divisions among Nigerians already exhausted by years of insecurity, terrorism, banditry, and mass kidnappings. For supporters, Sani’s comment captured the frustration of millions who feel the country has talked too much while armed groups continue to wreak havoc. For critics, it crossed the line into dangerous rhetoric that trivializes dialogue, human rights concerns, and the complexity of conflict resolution.

Nigeria has battled insurgency and banditry for more than a decade, with northern states like Borno, Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, and Kaduna bearing the brunt of the violence. Thousands have been killed, while many more have been displaced from their homes. Despite sustained military operations, including airstrikes and ground offensives, attacks on villages, highways, and even military formations have persisted, fueling public anger and despair. Against this backdrop, comments like Sani’s resonate strongly with a population desperate for results.

Supporters of the former senator argue that his remarks reflect a hard truth: that terrorist and bandit groups have repeatedly shown little interest in dialogue, exploiting negotiations as opportunities to regroup, demand ransoms, or gain legitimacy. They point to past attempts at amnesty deals, ceasefires, and negotiations that failed to deliver lasting peace. To them, Sani’s challenge to critics is simple — if military action is rejected, then those opposing it should demonstrate, in real terms, how dialogue alone can stop armed groups who profit from violence.

On social media, many users echoed this sentiment, saying that armchair critics who live far from conflict zones often underestimate the brutality faced by rural communities. Some argued that people who have never experienced attacks or kidnappings should not dictate policies that affect those living under constant threat. For these voices, Sani’s suggestion, while harsh, was symbolic of the anger felt by victims who believe that decisive force remains the only language terrorists understand.

However, others strongly condemned the statement, warning that it risks oversimplifying a deeply complex security challenge. Critics noted that opposing indiscriminate military strikes does not equate to supporting terrorism. Many human rights advocates argue that concerns about civilian casualties, displacement, and abuses by security forces are legitimate and must be addressed alongside counterterrorism efforts. They caution that rhetoric portraying critics as naïve or deserving of danger undermines democratic debate and accountability.

Some analysts also stressed that military action and dialogue are not mutually exclusive. They argue that successful counterinsurgency strategies worldwide often combine force with intelligence gathering, economic development, deradicalization programs, and community engagement. From this perspective, Sani’s comment was seen as emotionally charged but lacking nuance, potentially reinforcing an “us versus them” mindset at a time when unity and careful policy choices are crucial.

Shehu Sani himself is no stranger to controversy or outspoken commentary. As a former senator and long-time activist, he has frequently used social media to express blunt opinions on governance, security, and human rights. Over the years, he has criticized both government inaction and what he describes as hypocrisy among elites who speak against military operations while enjoying safety in major cities. His defenders argue that his latest comment should be understood in that context — as political commentary meant to provoke discussion rather than a literal policy proposal.

The timing of the statement is also significant. It comes amid renewed military operations in parts of the northwest and northeast, as well as public debates over foreign assistance, airstrikes, and the role of negotiations with armed groups. Reports of successful operations are often followed by fresh attacks elsewhere, reinforcing a sense of an endless cycle. In this tense atmosphere, public figures’ words carry extra weight, capable of either calming or inflaming national discourse.

Security experts caution that while public frustration is understandable, language that appears to glorify force without addressing root causes may be counterproductive. They emphasize that terrorism in Nigeria is fueled by a mix of ideology, poverty, governance failures, and criminal economies. Ignoring these factors, they say, risks prolonging the conflict even if short-term military gains are achieved. At the same time, they acknowledge that communities under siege often feel abandoned and may strongly support hardline approaches.

As reactions continue to pour in, Sani’s comment has once again highlighted the deep divisions in how Nigerians believe the country should confront terrorism. It raises uncomfortable questions about moral responsibility, policy effectiveness, and the balance between security and human rights. Whether seen as a blunt truth or reckless provocation, the statement has succeeded in one respect: forcing the nation to confront its collective anger, fear, and impatience over a war that has dragged on for far too long.

Ultimately, the debate sparked by Shehu Sani’s words reflects a broader national struggle to find solutions that work. As long as attacks continue and communities remain unsafe, strong opinions — and strong language — are likely to persist. What remains uncertain is whether Nigeria can move beyond heated rhetoric toward a strategy that combines strength, justice, and lasting peace for those who have suffered the most.