By Dr. Abdulkadir Aruwa


I recently came across a commentary by Dr. Mansur Sokoto in which he claimed that “those attempting to divide the Hausa and the Fulani are agents of the South, working to weaken the North.”


But let us speak frankly.


It is true that some groups from the Middle Belt and the South have tried to exploit tensions between Hausa and Fulani in order to deepen internal fractures in the North. That is clear. Yet the real questions are these:


Why are they interested in dividing the Hausa and the Fulani?

What benefit do they derive from such a division?

And why are many young Hausa people increasingly buying into these ideas, more than anyone expected?


1. Historical Context and Existing Frictions


The Fulani, particularly the pastoralist communities, have long had strained relations with several Middle-Belt and Southern ethnic groups. Their close association with the Hausa, however, offered them certain protections both socially and politically especially within the structure of northern dominance. This shield made it difficult for rival groups to exact revenge or marginalize them.


But those groups have never stopped seeking opportunities to weaken that Hausa-Fulani alliance.


2. Banditry and Its Ethnic Dimensions


The rise of cattle rustling, and its evolution into full-blown kidnapping and rural banditry from around 2011, has drastically reshaped northern relations. Over time, the violence took on a strong ethnic undertone, especially in the North-West. We began hearing labels such as “Fulani bandits,” and on the other side, bandit groups using names like “Mala’ikan Hausawa,” “Dari Biyar Tafi Bahaushe,” and similar identifiers (see BBC reports on banditry).


What worsened the situation was the posture of some northern elites and clerics who, driven by ethnic sentiment, openly sympathized with bandits or offered them unjustified excuses. Naturally, this angered many communities directly affected by the violence people who already felt closer culturally to the victims than to the perpetrators.



In any society where the state fails to protect lives and property, fear and chaos emerge. People begin forming “us versus them” identities along ethnic lines. Banditry, therefore, inevitably fuels division. It is also the direct reason behind the renewed revisiting of historical grievances such as the debates around Usman dan Fodio that were not this heated a decade ago.


3. Southern Interests and the Power Equation


Southern ethnic groups many of whom also clash with pastoralists naturally exploit the situation. From their perspective, weakening the perceived “northern political bloc” helps them break what they see as long-standing northern domination at the federal level and prevents further “intrusion” into lands they claim historically.


4. The Hausa Dilemma


But for Hausa communities currently living under constant insecurity, these southern political calculations are irrelevant. When one is overwhelmed by bandits, survival not political philosophy is the priority. The Hausa question, therefore, becomes:


If division eventually occurs, who is responsible?


Is it:


The Hausa, who are being killed daily and now feel the need to demand stronger representation to protect their lives?


The clerics and public figures, who defend criminals simply because they share ethnic ties, and who dismiss the Hausa identity entirely by claiming Hausa “is not a tribe”?


The Southerners, who themselves are victims of banditry and see advantage in amplifying northern divisions?


Or those with vested interests, who protect bandits in the forests out of ethnic loyalty and thereby provoke widespread resentment?


5. Motives vs. Opportunities


The South may indeed have its motives and may be promoting northern division. But an enemy only exploits an opening. No community will embrace its own killers simply to spite a rival ethnic group. Peaceful coexistence is never about tribe or religion it depends on whether all sides feel safe and respected.


Blaming “southern conspiracy” alone is intellectual laziness.

If northern unity collapses, the fault lies mainly with Fulani bandits and the urban elites who defend them, obstruct efforts to combat them, or downplay their atrocities in the name of ethnic solidarity. The government that allowed this insecurity to fester is equally responsible.


Where institutions weaken, internal divisions deepen.

Where the state fails, identity becomes a weapon.


Conclusion


The real battle is not ethnic rivalry it is banditry.

Ethnic tension is only a symptom.


As the saying goes:

“Do not waste time killing mosquitoes; dry up the swamps.”


That is the reality.


Dr. Abdulkadir Aruwa

16/11/2025


#hausaactivist