By Adebamiwa Olugbenga Michael
A rare and consequential intervention by (former Chief of Army Staff – Lieutenant General) Tukur Yusuf Buratai (rtd) has reopened difficult questions about Nigeria’s long and troubled fight against insurgency. Speaking on Politics Today on Channels Television in March 2026, the former Chief of Army Staff offered a candid yet carefully calibrated account of two of the most contentious pillars of the country’s counter-terrorism strategy, the rehabilitation of former insurgents and the elusive prosecution of those accused of financing terror. His remarks, while grounded in fact, also reveal the enduring tensions between accountability, institutional limits, and political self-preservation.
At the core of the issue of Buratai’s defence is the rehabilitation programme introduced under Muhammadu Buhari, notably through Operation Safe Corridor. Established in 2016, the initiative allowed surrendered fighters from Boko Haram to undergo deradicalisation and reintegration into society. Buratai is correct in asserting that this was not a military invention but a federal policy aligned with global counter-insurgency practices. Yet his phrasing “rehabilitating terrorists” carries a deliberate sharpness that departs from the official language of “repentant insurgents,” delicately reframing a policy once defended by the very institution he led.
This rhetorical shift matters. During his tenure from 2015 to 2021, Buratai was not merely an executor of policy but a central figure in shaping its implementation and public narrative. The programme, though internationally recognisable, faced persistent criticism at home, concerns over weak vetting, reports of criminal relapse, and a perception among affected communities that justice was unevenly applied. By revisiting the policy in 2026, Buratai appears to acknowledge its controversies while simultaneously repositioning responsibility, presenting the military as compliant rather than complicit in its design.
Even more striking is his assertion that Nigeria’s security agencies possess knowledge of those financing terrorism, yet have neither publicly named nor effectively prosecuted them. This claim echoes long-standing reports from institutions such as the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and aligns with previous government disclosures suggesting that networks of financiers, spanning political, commercial, and religious spheres have long operated with relative impunity. Coming from a retired four-star general with deep intelligence exposure, the statement carries weight, reinforcing a widely held public suspicion that the roots of insecurity extend far beyond the battlefield.
Yet here, too, Buratai’s frankness is tempered by caution. By emphasising that disclosure and prosecution fall outside the military’s remit, he draws a firm institutional boundary that is technically valid but politically convenient. As a former member of Nigeria’s highest security decision-making bodies, including the National Security Council, his distance from these failures is not absolute. The refusal to name names or provide substantive evidence leaves his claim suspended between revelation and restraint, powerful enough to provoke concern, yet insufficient to compel accountability.
The timing of these remarks, under the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, adds another layer of significance. They may be read as an implicit challenge to current leadership to act where previous governments did not, or as an effort by a key figure of the Buhari era to recalibrate his legacy amid ongoing insecurity. In either interpretation, the intervention underscores a deeper reality, Nigeria’s counter-terrorism struggle has been as much about political will and institutional consistency as it has been about military capability.
In the end, Buratai’s statement clarifies a logical inconsistency that has defined Nigeria’s security landscape for over a decade. It acknowledges real policies and credible intelligence, yet stops short of the full transparency required to transform insight into action. The result is a familiar cycle, disclosure without consequence, awareness without reform. Until the state moves decisively to confront both the architects and enablers of violence, beyond talking points and institutional caution, the promise of lasting security will remain elusive, and interventions such as this, however striking, will continue to echo without resolution.
©️ Adebamiwa Olugbenga Michael is a Lagos-based journalist and policy analyst, and publisher of The Insight Lens Project, offering principled, data-driven insights on Nigeria and West Africa
