Abuja – In a decisive and expansive national security move ahead of the 2026 electoral cycle, the Federal Government of Nigeria has officially declared a sweeping list of thirty-one distinct categories of individuals and groups to be considered terrorists under a newly established legal doctrine. The unprecedented directive, announced by security chiefs following high-level consultations with the National Security Council, significantly broadens the scope of what constitutes terrorist activity and affiliation within the nation’s borders.
The list, obtained by our correspondents from authoritative security sources, moves far beyond the traditional designation of known insurgent factions. It represents a holistic, system-wide offensive against the entire ecosystem that fuels insecurity, targeting not only those who carry arms but also the vast network of logistical, financial, and political enablers that sustain them. Analysts describe the move as the most aggressive legislative reinterpretation of counter-terrorism strategy in a decade, aimed at dismantling the complex infrastructure of violence plaguing the country.
A Comprehensive Blueprint Against Insecurity:
The newly proscribed categories form a comprehensive blueprint for prosecution under the Terrorism Prevention Act. The directive explicitly covers:
1. Armed groups operating outside state authority.
2. Individuals wielding lethal weapons without authorisation.
3. Bandits – a term that has come to define the ruthless gangs terrorizing the Northwest and Northcentral regions.
4. Militias of all stripes.
5. Armed gangs.
6. Criminal networks utilizing weapons.
7. Armed robbers.
8. Violent cult groups.
9. Forest-based armed collectives – a direct reference to the hidden camps used as bases for kidnapping and attacks.
10. Foreign-linked mercenaries.
Crucially, the government has cast a wide net over the enablers and facilitators of violence, signaling an intent to choke off the lifeblood of armed groups. The list now includes:
1. Political violence actors.
2. Ethnic violence actors.
3. Financial violence actors.
4. Sectarian violence actors.
5. Kidnappers and Extortionists.
6. Financiers of armed groups, their money handlers, and harbourers.
7. Informants, ransom facilitators, and ransom negotiators.
In a bold stroke that directly confronts alleged high-level collusion, the doctrine also targets:
1. Political protectors and political intermediaries.
2. Transporters of fighters or weapons, arms suppliers, and safe house owners.
Perhaps the most politically significant inclusions are the final three categories, which for the first time explicitly name figures of societal authority who may be complicit:
1. Politicians who encourage violence.
2. Traditional rulers who enable terror.
3. Community leaders who facilitate violence.
4. Religious leaders who justify terror.
Strategic Timing and Political Implications:
The announcement comes at a critical juncture, with the nation gradually shifting focus toward the 2026 general elections—a period historically marred by heightened political tension and violence. Security experts suggest the doctrine serves as a stern pre-emptive warning to political actors, local power brokers, and traditional institutions that any rhetoric or action deemed to incite or support violence will be met with the full force of anti-terror laws, which carry severe penalties.
“This is not just about the man in the forest with a gun,” stated a senior security analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is about the businessman in the city who finances him, the elder who provides a hiding place, the cleric who provides ideological cover, and the politician who leverages the chaos for electoral gain. The government is attempting to criminalize the entire chain.”
Public Reaction and a Notable Name:
The announcement has triggered vigorous debate across the nation. Civil society groups have cautiously welcomed the potential to address deep-seated complicity but urge strict adherence to due process to prevent misuse for political persecution. Human rights lawyers have flagged concerns over the broad definitions, warning they must not be used to stifle legitimate dissent or protest.
Among the most vocal segments of the public, however, the reaction has been one of strong endorsement, particularly on social media and talk radio. Many citizens, weary of years of unchecked violence and perceived impunity for enablers, see the move as long overdue.
This public sentiment was crystallized in a widely circulated commentary from a social media user, who declared: “This is a very good development. Gumi is in for a ride this time, let him come out to say nonsense again.”
The mention refers to Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, a prominent Islamic cleric known for his controversial dialogues with bandit groups in the North, advocating for amnesty and often criticizing military operations. While not explicitly named in the government’s list, the specific inclusion of “religious leaders who justify terror” and “ransom negotiators” is perceived by many observers and the public as a clear, albeit indirect, reference to his activities and those like him. The public reaction suggests a growing intolerance for narratives perceived as excusing or legitimizing terrorist activities.
The Road Ahead:
The effectiveness of this doctrinal shift now hinges on rigorous implementation, judicial fortitude, and inter-agency coordination. The security agencies face the monumental task of gathering prosecutable evidence against individuals in the newly listed categories, especially those with social, political, or religious capital.
As Nigeria strides toward 2026, this sweeping redefinition of terrorism marks a new, more aggressive phase in its security policy. It is a gamble that seeks to dismantle not just the visible manifestations of terror, but its very roots in society. The nation now watches to see if this powerful legal instrument will become a tool for lasting stability or a subject of contentious application in the turbulent political landscape that lies ahead.
