JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
These numbers are no longer just statistics; it was a bloody indictment. When the 2026 Global Terrorism Index (GTI) was released last week, it confirmed what millions of Nigerians have been experiencing in silence: the country is fast becoming the world’s most dangerous frontline in the fight against extremism. In a surprising jump that goes against global trends, Nigeria rose two places and secured the fourth position as the most terror-affected country in the world. While the world’s attention is focused on the Sahel and the Middle East, existing data shows the dire reality in West Africa’s largest economy—where ISIS’ footprint has grown by 360 percent in one year.
According to GTI’s 2026 report, the figures indicate systemic collapse, not sporadic violence. Terror attacks in Nigeria surged by 43 percent, jumping from 120 incidents in 2024 to 171 incidents in 2025. The death toll also experienced a similar trend, increasing by 46 percent to reach 750 fatalities—the highest death toll recorded since the darkest days of 2020. This increase is not simply a continuation of the long-standing Boko Haram insurgency; it represents a mutation. The Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) has effectively operationalized its presence, with the number of ISIS-linked attacks surging from 20 attacks in 2024 to 92 attacks in 2025. The epicenter remains in Borno State, a graveyard of ambition where 67 percent of all attacks and 72 percent of all deaths occurred, turning the region into a bastion of rubble and fear.
What makes Nigeria’s decline particularly worrying is its geographic isolation in a region that appears to be recovering. The report highlights a cruel paradox: while neighboring countries in the Sahel—such as Burkina Faso and Niger—have recorded significant declines in both attacks and fatalities, Nigeria is the only country in sub-Saharan Africa to experience increases in both categories. While Burkina Faso saw a 45 percent drop in deaths and Niger saw a sharp decline in the number of incidents, Nigeria recorded the largest increase in terrorism-related deaths globally, with an increase of 237 Nigerians killed in 2025 compared to the previous year. These differences raise a frightening question: if the region is stable, why is Nigeria burning?
The first important thing to pay attention to lies in the sincerity of leadership. After a devastating attack in Maiduguri that left at least 23 people dead and 108 injured in March 2026, President Bola Tinubu issued a defiant statement, vowing that “there is no place in Nigeria where terrorists can find safety” and directing service chiefs to move to the front lines. However, despite these rhetorical attacks, the data shows a disconnect between official statements and operational reality. Peter Obi, a former presidential candidate, captured the national frustration perfectly, describing the GTI rankings as “a painful indictment of leadership failure” and a direct result of “misplaced priorities, weak governance, corruption and lack of rule of law”. When a country’s security architecture allows a 43 percent increase in attacks while the President promises total victory, the gap between words and actions becomes a credibility gap that emboldens adversaries.
Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth emerging from behind the scenes is the extent of internal collaboration—the second area of deep concern. This rebellion was not simply an external invasion; it is an ecosystem fostered by local informants, vulnerable officials, and criminals. Security experts have warned that the “citizen collaborator” phenomenon is further fueling the fire. In Katsina State, authorities recently revealed that 80 percent of bandit attacks were aided by informants from local communities—that is, individuals who sold soft drinks to fighters at inflated prices, or worse, provided them with drugs and intelligence on military jet flight schedules. There are several documented cases where individuals conspired with terrorists to kidnap their own relatives for ransom, thus turning the horror into a sinister business model.
The Committee for the Defense of Human Rights (CDHR) has demanded a time-limited investigation into these “intelligence and operational errors”, noting that in the recent attack on Gwoza, the insurgents transported heavy weapons using tricycles, indicating a level of local coordination and involvement that would not have been possible if the state intelligence network was functioning.
Closely related to the issue of collaboration is the dangerous presence of sympathetic groups and fake “negotiators” who, under the guise of peace efforts, provide legitimacy to terror groups. Ambassador Abayomi Nurain Mumuni, a leading security expert, recently called on the government to take swift action against people who openly sympathize with terrorists, and warned that these “defenders” are often more dangerous than the fighters themselves. He argued that involving such elements in peace negotiations is counterproductive, as they “may not have the country’s best interests in mind” and instead exploit public sympathy while strengthening criminal networks. These groups often act as supporters of the insurgency, providing ideological cover, recruitment channels, and a kind of political legitimacy for organizations such as ISWAP and the emerging Lakurawa sect, which recorded 74 deaths in 2025.
READ ALSO: NGX ROUNDUP: Equity market capitalization falls by N157 billion
However, the most confusing layer in Nigeria’s counterterrorism strategy lies in its foreign policy—which is the third area of scrutiny. Why is a country struggling to contain an internal rebellion and signing a bewildering series of security agreements with the United States, Türkiye, Britain, and France simultaneously? The diplomatic calendar in early 2026 is full of: a defense pact with the US involving potential troop deployments and the Trump administration’s designation of “countries of special concern”; a strategic agreement with Türkiye signed in Ankara on January 27 that includes defense cooperation; and continuing military modernization talks with the UK under the Nigeria-UK Security and Defense Partners Dialogue. On the surface, this looks like global solidarity. But digging deeper reveals a strategic paradox. These alliances often create conflicting geopolitical interests—Türkiye’s acquisition of a Russian missile system, for example, triggered US sanctions, but Nigeria tries to incorporate both powers into its security doctrine.
Analysts warn that without a unified national counterterrorism doctrine, these bilateral agreements risk becoming “a patchwork of competing military philosophies” rather than a cohesive fighting force. As one security think tank notes, when a country invites multiple allies with differing threat perceptions and intelligence-sharing protocols, it risks multiplying protections that only complicate sovereignty. The danger is that the Nigerian military will likely have incompatible equipment, fragmented intelligence, and a loss of operational coherence. There is a growing consensus that the government must “move from diplomatic expansion to strategic consolidation” – a sentiment shared by civil society groups who worry that the current approach prioritizes symbolism over real protection of the lives of Nigerians.
The consequences of this chaos are no longer abstract. Civilians now account for 67 percent of all fatalities in terrorist attacks, a chilling statistic that underscores the state’s failure to carry out its core duties. Violence is also widespread geographically, extending from the Northeast to the once peaceful Southwest. The pan-Yoruba socio-political organization, Afenifere, has raised concerns over the “influx of terrorists and bandits” into forests in Ondo, Oyo and Osun states. In a horrific illustration of what was to come, 162 people were massacred in Kwara State, near the border of Benin Republic, in February—one of the deadliest attacks in recent history. Traditional rulers were murdered, farmers abandoned their land, and schoolchildren were banned from attending school in areas previously considered safe havens.
As Nigeria faces the precipice of violence, the looming danger is normalization. When 750 deaths in one year are considered a statistical increase and not a national emergency, the fabric of the country begins to crumble. The government’s denial and reliance on a fragmented alliance of international partners may buy time, but it does not buy security. The rebels are no longer just fighting for territory; they are fighting to delegitimize the state itself. For every abandoned community in Borno, for every unpunished collaborator, and for every foreign treaty signed without a clear doctrine, the state increasingly loses its monopoly on violence.
The time for diplomatic symbolism has passed. As security experts and human rights groups argue, the Federal Government must conduct a transparent investigation into operational irregularities that led to a 43 percent increase in attacks. The government must criminalize defenders and remove collaborators hiding within the security apparatus. And most importantly, the country must define the terms of its alliance, ensuring that the training and intelligence provided by the US, Turkey and the UK have a single goal: the safety of Nigerian citizens. The world watched, but guns continued to be fired in Maiduguri, Gwoza, and now, Owo. If Nigeria cannot secure its own homeland, all the memorandums of understanding in the world will just be ink on paper erased by the blood of innocent people.
By: Allen Durueke
