https://www.facebook.com/100485659575175/

Benue Open Governance Society, Makurdi (2026)

13/08/2026

RANCHING IS NOT DISPOSSESSION: NEED TO RESIST FEAR-DRIVEN POLICY REJECTION

The RISING anxieties around the proposed national ranching programme in Benue state are neither imaginary nor irrational. Communities in Benue have suffered, endured killings, displacement, terrible destruction of livelihoods and the virtual collapse of SOCIAL TRUST.

A FGN ranching proposal in Benue state must therefore come to terms that it is entering a landscape characterized with deep trauma. However, legitimate truama cannot become a substitute for deep evidence. Again neither can apprehension be exaggeratedly conscripted into policy analysis.

That ranching reserves or ranches constitute the “legal deposition of killers among their victims” is rhetorically appealing but analytically not FACTUAL. It only elevates an extraordinarily consequential allegation or charge without establishing the requisite, necessary causal chain which is that, the proposed beneficiaries are summarily responsible for the killings, that ranching reserves will be occupied by those perpetrators, and that the policy is deliberately designed to provide PERPETRATORS more territorial protection and grip. Those propositions shouldn't even be inferenced from ethnicity angle PURELY.

There should be a distinction between a security problem involving criminal actors and a livestock-management policy involving an occupational population or an intending occupational prospects. Collapsing the two is nationally errorneous, and a sad commentary that has kept Nigeria trapped in the crises tag "farmer-herder crisis" for decades. Farmer-herder crises has actuall been a "facade".

If militant herder groups are reeling atrocities, the FGN must fish them out. Must disarm them, prosecute accordingly. Criminality cannot rationally be imputed to an entire occupational community. The opinion or mindset that every pastoralist or herder is a potential killer is no more defensible than suggesting that every farmer is incapable of criminality. Benue people inspite of its decades of mourning should be thoughtful not to allow legitimate grievances to produce an intellectually convenient but strategically disastrous judgment to rashly reject a policy on mere sight.

The real stuff is not whether ranching should exist, but under whose rules. And such rules must carry strong indigeneity rights and obligations.

The modern policy of FGN on ranching is not in our research finding synonymous with RUGA or Cattle colonies or ethnic settlements. No.

Meanwhile, a ranch is a land-use and livestock-production facility or premises. It usually is properly regulated, and can be defined by physical land boundaries, identifiable leaseholders (communities), veterinary backbone, water resourcing, livestock TRACEABILITY, biosecurity, etc.

Nigeria cannot keep on to operate a livestock economy in free grazing mode without predictable rules governing access to land and water, etc that exposes and causes more socially combustibly. Benue state communities should therefore be agitating, demanding better ranching, NOT rejecting ranching.

There is a sharp difference between stating:
“We will not surrender our ancestral land to an opaque federal settlement scheme" and saying:
“We oppose every organised system of livestock production because pastoralists may be among its beneficiaries.” SHARP DIFFERENCE. The first is a genuine defence of indigenous land rights, but the second risks becoming an intricate ethnic exclusion veiling as security policy.

Government on the other hand must earn TRUST more than demanding it considering citizen pains in the hands of "cows and their marauding grazing terrorists". If ranches or ranching reserves are to be put on ground, there must be RIGHTHEOUS clarity around land ownership or leaseship, land acquisition protocols, compensation, tenure, security plans that factor locals, exit provisions, etc. On no account should there be backdoor acquisition of indigenous land or even existing ranch spaces designated decades ago by late Governor Aper Aku.

Again communities should be insisting NO autonomous ethnic enclaves in ranch spaces. Communities should be getting excited to join the organised livestock sector as development associations through appropriate corporate structures. Insistence on no uncontrolled expansion of designated ranch areas, etc. should be the safeguards and not outright rejection.

To the fear of the "herders of the world", clear stringent guides towards NO migration cloaked as livestock development should be pressed for and secured. Infact, there must be no STRICT federal policy that places the security of indigenous communities at the 100% mercy of the very institutions or groups they dread or have failed to protect them in the past. THANKS to upcoming State Policing bill. We can go on and on on red flags but lets stop there...

During consultation and townhalling runs, policy can be rejigged or redesigned so the ranches do not carry traits that compounds indigenes fears of potential conquest or land-grabbing. The “conflict” argument in the essay also requires some bit of rational thought. There is a frankly understandable apprehension at the phrase “farmer-herder conflict.” Thousands of victims may deeply consider the coinage inadequate to accomodate the horrors, massacres, displacement and unprovoked attacks especially in the past ten years. However, policy language should not be fixatedly determined exclusively by political rhetoric. It is true there are instances of organised attacks by armed suspected herders. Same way, there are also land disputes, cattle rustling, destruction of crops, criminality and EVEN communal reprisals. These do not become less real because one dislikes the terminology or phrasing of "farmer-herder crises".

An elightenrd policy discourse should be holding several truths at the same time. Yes. These are, Fulani militias actually exist, community farmers also commit violence directly or in retaliation. Innocent herders and innocent farmers are victims. There is criminality on multiple sides and atimes an integrated mix. Security agency complicity, etc. THEN the big one: political exploitation of the long Benue crisis. These truths and others must be pooled together in search of sound ranching than in rejection of it as proposed by FGN.

Benue must not confuse, conflict vigilance with strategic "paralysis". The strongest contention against ranching is not that ranching is inbuilt as an instrument or tool of ethnic conquest. It is that any ranching programme imposed without transparency, state participation, community consent and rigorous security architecture could become one. So far we believe consultations will be held and commenced without much ado. Benue can choose to reject or go ahead. We believe with sound assurance Benue will embrace an opportunity that fully asserts her food basket status all-roundedly.

Absolute rejection is NOT strategic. It is shortsighted powered by fear "vaccinated" by ignorance. Benue farmers need security, even as its livestock sector also has huge economic potential on account of her rich agrilands. Benue can have a focal investment company that could participate in the modern livestock economy. Too many benefits.

Benue must not stay FEARFULLY-FIXATED in a "conflict economy". Benue must step forward to become an active architect of the Nigeria’s emerging livestock economy.

If FGN criteria for selecting Benue as pilot state are still doubtful, the state only needs to demand FULL disclosure and get better assured than policy-castigation out of traumatic fear. If State or community land is required, constitutional procedures must be observed. If Benue funds are being used, the financial outlay should be very transparent. As a serious people, negotiations or discussions with FGN/BNSG should be driven by the OGPERL 2017 (as amended) law amongst other things AND NOT through the fearsome assumption that the proposed policy conceals an ethnic conspiracy or a future conquest pursuit.

Let Benue examine ranching so nobody uses it to dispossess people or forcefully uproot them from their ancestral lands. Let government at State and FGN levels demonstrate that the policy is genuinely about livestock development and NOT demographic MANIPULATION.

We advise against paranoia on part of Benue stakeholders. This may only isolate and potentially- economically stagnate and rub us of being part of the pilot ranching scheme.

The crux should not be whether a Fulani herder may own cattle in Benue. He may, provided he obeys the law. The issue again is not whether a Yoruba, Itsekiri, Tiv, Idoma, Igede or any other Nigerian may be partaker in livestock production ecosystem. THEY SHOULD.

Benue MUST negotiate hard enough to ensure that ranching is a viable instrument of resounding agricultural modernisation, and not a tool to dispossession as currently feared. Fear should ONLY make BENUE vigilant, and not make her incapable of DEEP thinking and FORESIGHT to cast away a promising policy path evolving under well grounded PPP's.

Samuel Agwa, Convener, Benue Open Governance Society (BOGS)
[email protected]

13th August 2026

27/07/2026

MOMENTUM INDEX CELEBRATION IS NOT WORTH IT YET.

Momentum Index is PURELY a Momentum Index. It is NOT a ranking of the "best" states in Nigeria. It measures how FAST a state improved relative to others using over 30 indicators. A good proportion of citizen perception also comes in and not just objective analytics.It is not an Overall Performance Index. NOT the total achievements of a state. Not at all.

A low momentum score does not automatically imply Benue is the 30th worst-governed state, but that Benue's rate of improvement was below the NATIONAL AVERAGE during the review cycle or season.

In Benue many factors are possible for the perception and analysis:
HISTORICALLY EXCEPTIONAL INSECURITY ISSUES may be at the core. Comparing Benue state directly with states that have enjoyed relative peace may not generate a fair picture of governance performance scores. Again, citizen perception especially in a politically polarized Benue with all manner of deceptive social and general media narratives could lend a significant portion to the so called poor rating of the state!

In Benue today, roads construction and rehabilitation, scale up of healthcare facilities, schools fixes, rising IGR, employments in thousands, etc. present more cinvincing evidence than MOMENTARY, momentum report as published by Philips Consulting.

NOW which of the MANY indicators caused Benue to score -0.49? How does this momentary index sit well with other existing reports on Benue like the Flitch rating, etc. Benue is even very high on fiscal responsibility and general prudence, transparency, education, agriculture, investment growth, etc.

Those Philips Consulting report needs to be interrogated on indicator-indicator basis and the averaging.

No single index should be treated as the final verdict on Benue. A Momentum Index measures the rate of change rather than the totality of governance. A balanced assessment of Benue should consider the state's efforts in infrastructure, education, agriculture, healthcare, and security interventions alongside the extraordinary constraints around insecurity and IDPs, especially within the Alia years, and deeply too.

Promoters and fans of Phillips Consulting should seek to publish the detailed indicator-by-indicator scores for Benue to enable informed public scrutiny and constructive policy debate than the current attempts at tauting and celebrating out of political disdain for the milestones Benue has built under Alia.

BOGS look forward to a more robust debate after getting details of the indicators and scoring.

Samuel Agwa, Convener. Benue Open Governance Society (BOGS)
[email protected]

27th July 2026

23/07/2026

BENUE 2027: HISTORY OF PUBLIC SERVICE MATTERS

As we inch closer to 2027 governorship election in Benue State, public discourse should stretch beyond propaganda sprees, personal attacks, and political theatric-ing. The reality contest should not be about who shouts the loudest or throws the most brutal punch or punches. The focus should be on track records, integrity in service, and performance, especially of those seeking the governorship seat.

Democratic accountability is usually strengthened when candidates are assessed not only by their promissory notes but also by the public legacies they have built through community and public service.

There is an old saying that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know. Whether one agrees with that proverb or not, one truth remains indisputable: the man asking to replace today's leader must first explain yesterday's leadership. You cannot market or parade yourself as the solution or BEST MAN while obstructing or playing absenteeism that the public forget your own history in the public gallery.

Governor Hyacinth Alia is already under intense public scrutiny. This is expected of an incumbent. His policies, achievements, shortcomings, and decisions are legitimate subjects of public debate because he currently occupies public office. This is okay, but should not be limited to him, except if he is the sole contender. He is not.

BUT fairness is never selective and scrutiny must not stop at the current headboy in Government House. It should stretch to others too atleast within the historical spheres they once played in.

Fairness requires that every governorship contender be subjected to the same or APPROPRIATE level of scrutiny. No serious candidate or his fan base of supporters should behave as though his or her public history began only with the declaration of his governorship ambition. No.

A fact remains that, campaign posters do not erase public records and political slogans do not rewrite history.

Leading aspirants, including Hyacinth Alia, Terhemba Shija, Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, Mathias Byuan, Herman Hembe, and others, have each held positions of responsibility in one capacity or another. The public deserves to know every antecedent. Take a stroll in the gallery of history and look up the "relics". Public stewardship, decisions, and, where applicable, 'controversies' should all be frankly interrogated. Such a scrutiny powers citizens to assess or conduct inquest into leadership quality, competence, integrity, and the capacity to deliver sound results.

If the incumbent must answer for today, every challenger must answer for yesterday.

An election is not won and should not be won through the distortion of facts or the demonisation of incumbents or other opponents. Let an open communication be, so that evidence will outweighs emotion and truth will triumph over misinformation and half-truths. Citizens deserve factual engagement that informs, reveals, and enlightens rather than merely inflames passion or politicises public opinion against especially incumbents.

The loudest critic is not always the best alternative. Sometimes the fiercest attack on the government of the day may simply be an attempt to distract attention from yesterday's unanswered questions.

The Benue electorate must resist narratives built solely on political rhetoricing and instead demand verifiable records of service from every aspirant or candidate. Every contender must stand on the same or appropriate scale(s). Let one or appropriate standard apply to all.

Public office usually leaves behind a TRAIL. Leadership at whatever level also leaves FOOTPRINTS.
Past conduct usually provides insights into guaging future performance.

The 2027 election should not be a race of who shouts the loudest or maligns, but a sober scrutiny of character, integrity, and proven community and public service.

Benue MUST have an honestly balanced and empirical conversation as we search for the leadership best suited to our common good and heritage.

FACE YOUR PAST... THEN FACE YOUR PROMISES....

MAY EVERY MAN AND WOMAN ANSWER HIS FATHER'S NAME IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE.

Samuel Agwa
Convener, Benue Open Governance Society (BOGS)
[email protected]

23rd July 2026

19/07/2026

When INEC's Monitoring Report Conflicts with a Political Party's Submission: Whose Candidate Does the Law Recognise?

By Dr. Muiz Banire, SAN.

The political dust generated by the recently concluded party primaries is yet to settle. As expected, several disputes have already found their ways to the courts, while many more are waiting in the wings. Among the numerous legal controversies that have emerged, one appears particularly novel and capable of reshaping Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence. It concerns the apparent conflict between the list of successful aspirants recorded by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) during its statutory monitoring of party primaries and the names eventually submitted by political parties as their sponsored candidates.

The controversy has understandably generated anxiety among aspirants and the electorate alike. Some aspirants insist that they genuinely won the primaries conducted by their political parties under the watchful eyes of INEC officials. Yet, when the official list of candidates was eventually transmitted to the Commission, their names had disappeared, replaced by those of other individuals. Others contend that the list submitted by the political party is the only list recognised by law irrespective of what transpired at the primary election itself.

The inevitable question therefore is this: where there is a conflict between the monitoring report prepared by INEC and the list eventually submitted by the political party, which should prevail?

At first impression, the answer appears deceptively simple. However, upon a closer examination of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act 2026, and the decisions of our superior courts, one quickly discovers that the issue is far more complex than many imagine.

The Electoral Act still maintained the earlier reform of mandatory monitoring of the political parties' primaries intended to strengthen internal party democracy. This requirement, which is expected to be fundamental, demands that the parties must give INEC at least twenty-one days' notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of nominating candidates.

This requirement is contained in Section 82 of the Electoral Act which provides thus:

> "(1) Every registered political party shall give the Commission at least 21 days' notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of electing members of its executive committees, other governing bodies or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices or merger specified under this Act.

> (2) The notice shall specify the date, time, venue, and names of the members of the congress, convention or conference committee as spelt out in the party's Constitution.

> (3) The Commission, with or without prior notice to the political party, shall attend and observe any convention, congress, conference or meeting which is convened by a political party for the purpose of:

Electing members of its executive committees or other governing bodies; and

Electing candidates for an election at any level.

> (6) Failure of a political party to notify the Commission as stated in subsections (1) and (2) shall render the primaries, convention, congress and conferences invalid."

The purpose is obvious. INEC is expected to deploy officials to observe the exercise and independently verify compliance with the law and the party's own guidelines.

This monitoring function is not a ceremonial exercise. It is a statutory duty imposed upon the Commission by the National Assembly. The monitoring report prepared by INEC is therefore intended to serve as an objective and independent record of what actually transpired during the primary election. It records whether the primary was conducted, whether due process was substantially followed, who participated, the votes scored, and the aspirant who emerged.

One is therefore compelled to ask: if the report generated by INEC can simply be ignored whenever a political party submits a different name, what then is the practical value of the elaborate monitoring process prescribed by law? Parliament could hardly have intended such an absurdity.

On the other hand, the Constitution introduces another dimension that cannot be overlooked. Sections 65, 106, 131 and 177 prescribe the qualification requirements for election into the various elective offices, while Sections 66, 107, 137 and 182 set out the grounds for disqualification. More fundamentally, Sections 221 and 222 recognise political parties as the only constitutionally authorised vehicles for sponsoring candidates for elective offices. In Nigeria, individuals do not contest elections in their personal capacities. Political parties contest elections through candidates whom they sponsor.

Section 65 of the Constitution provides:

> "(2) A person shall be qualified for election under subsection (1) of this section if: (a) he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent; and (b) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that party."

Section 221 provides:

> "No association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate at an election."

Section 222 provides for the modalities and restrictions relating to the formation of political parties.

Consequently, sponsorship remains an indispensable constitutional requirement. It follows that no matter how successful an aspirant may have been at a primary election, his emergence alone does not automatically place his name on the ballot. The political party must formally sponsor him by submitting his name to INEC within the period prescribed by law.

It is precisely at this intersection that the present legal dilemma arises. Can a person whose victory was recorded by INEC during the monitoring exercise be said to have become the sponsored candidate where the political party deliberately refuses to submit his name? Conversely, can a political party, after conducting a primary election under INEC's supervision, simply ignore its outcome and submit another person's name without legal consequences?

The Electoral Act itself appears to discourage such arbitrariness. Sections 29 and 33 regulate the submission and substitution of candidates. Section 33 is particularly significant because it drastically limits substitution after valid primaries to recognised statutory exceptions, principally death or voluntary withdrawal within the stipulated time. The era when political parties freely substituted candidates after primaries was one of the mischiefs the Electoral Act sought to eliminate.

The courts have equally travelled a long distance in protecting internal party democracy. In SDP v. INEC (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1905) 499, the Supreme Court held that political parties have the constitutional monopoly to select and nominate candidates, and that independent candidacy is not recognised under the Constitution or the Electoral Act.

In Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1080) 227, the Supreme Court held that although elections belong to political parties, political parties cannot act outside the law. The Court refused to endorse an unlawful substitution of a candidate who had legitimately emerged from the primary process.

Similarly, in APC v. Marafa (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 383 and Lado v. CPC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that political parties must strictly comply with both their constitutions and the Electoral Act in conducting primaries. Courts acquire jurisdiction whenever allegations of statutory non-compliance arise.

Numerous subsequent decisions, including PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt.1606) 187, have consistently reinforced one central proposition: political parties are bound by their constitutions, guidelines and the Electoral Act.

These authorities, however, stop short of answering the precise question presently confronting us. None directly considered the legal consequence of a conflict between INEC's monitoring report and the candidate list eventually submitted by the political party. This therefore remains a relatively fresh frontier in Nigerian electoral law.

In my respectful opinion, neither extreme position represents the correct legal approach.

To hold that the list submitted by the political party must invariably prevail would render INEC's statutory monitoring function meaningless. It would allow political parties to conduct transparent primaries under INEC's observation only to discard the authentic winners afterwards. Such an outcome would undermine the very objective of the Electoral Act.

This explains why the Supreme Court, in Atuma v. APC (2023) 16 NWLR (Pt.1910) 371, held that where a political party has made its choice through a valid primary election, it cannot arbitrarily substitute that candidate or conduct another primary without cogent reason. The successful aspirant's name must be submitted to INEC. The Court adopted a similar position in Abdullahi v. Argungu (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt.1895) 289.

Conversely, to hold that INEC's monitoring report automatically constitutes sponsorship may equally stretch the law beyond its present limits. INEC monitors primaries; it does not nominate candidates. The constitutional power of sponsorship remains vested in political parties.

The more harmonious approach is to read the Constitution and the Electoral Act together. The Constitution empowers political parties to sponsor candidates, while the Electoral Act regulates how that power must be exercised. Constitutional powers cannot be used to legitimise illegality.

Accordingly, where an aspirant proves that he lawfully emerged from a valid primary conducted in compliance with the party constitution, party guidelines and the Electoral Act, and where INEC's monitoring report corroborates that position, the courts may determine whether the subsequent submission of another person's name constitutes an unlawful substitution.

The challenge, however, is that political parties sometimes manipulate their internal appeal mechanisms to alter the original outcome of primaries. Ultimately, it is judicial determination—not the unilateral assertion of either INEC or the political party—that will resolve such disputes.

Indeed, I foresee that this issue may eventually reach the Supreme Court, where the apex court will have another opportunity to enrich Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence by harmonising the constitutional concept of sponsorship with the statutory objective of safeguarding internal party democracy.

The larger issue transcends the fortunes of individual aspirants. It concerns the credibility of Nigeria's democratic process. If political parties can freely disregard the outcome of primaries witnessed by the electoral umpire, confidence in internal democracy will steadily erode. On the other hand, if INEC's statutory monitoring is stripped of legal significance, one must legitimately question why the National Assembly imposed that obligation in the first place.

Ultimately, democracy is sustained not merely by elections but by fidelity to the rule of law. Every institution created by law must be allowed to perform the function assigned to it. Political parties must exercise their constitutional powers responsibly. INEC must discharge its statutory responsibilities impartially. Above all, the judiciary must continue to serve as the impartial guardian of constitutionalism by ensuring that neither political expediency nor institutional convenience triumphs over legality.

As matters presently stand, therefore, it would be unsafe to proclaim the absolute supremacy of either list. The decisive question will always remain whether the political party complied with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, its own constitution and guidelines, and whether the evidence—particularly the independent monitoring report prepared by INEC—establishes that the person eventually submitted is truly the lawful product of a valid primary election.

Until the Supreme Court pronounces definitively on this issue and clarifies the proper legal approach, the controversy will remain one of the most important and closely watched legal battles on the road to the 2027 general election.

COPIED

18/07/2026

Benue State Development Plan (BSDP) 2025–2034: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yP-B28b79h1gFPYlnKdVCdomC_xJ2XAg/view?fbclid=IwdGRjcATHXtpjbGNrBMde0mV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHlp9CjAcP-PSliTx48dn8_OtuxUB5OzKmpCUwgLk0QIVHCne4h54hfL6Vs3C_aem_gt4Pj3PwbBIGUPzd5hHCmQ

link culled from Prof Leonard Karshima Shilgba Facebook wall

17/07/2026

DISCERNING THE POLITICISATION OF INSECURITY SITUATION IN BENUE STATE

Attention: Senator Abba Moro, et. al.

Politicisation, worse still "partnerships in politicisation" means making an issue, a concern or an event or series of events to become matters of political debate and competition by interpreting or using it through reckless political lens-ing.

Politicisation can be good or bad, foul, depending on the context and cravings to either grow society or destroy it. When public issues of education, healthcare, infrastructure, or security receive political attention, leading to robust debate, accountability, and policy improvements, it is good POLITICISATION.
When however a tragedy or carnage, security imperfection, is EXUBERANTLY exploited to gain political dividends or hasty electoral profit instead of focusing on collaboration to solving the problem, it reflects bad POLITICISATION.

Politicisation of insecurity entails using or deploying attacks, killings, or security challenges primarily as tools to advance political interests by heaping blames ENDLESSLY, discrediting in-toto all security cm community and government efforts. Usually by mobilizing support and recruiting citizend and the Media to discredit and make victims of attacks mere statistics.

One example of politicisation is the recent elite diarrhea-ring from incumbent Senator Abba Moro pontificating his privileged discussions with Benue Police Chief who allegedly told him he couldnt reach to Governor Alia for days until the Otukpo-Nobi attack happened! Wow! What a spite, what an incitement and hate against government and security efforts. Senator Moro is so close to Benue State Police Chief but couldn't escalate things to Governor Alia?! Senatorial rascality?

The climax in the politicisation are the support group voices swarming on facebook shouting and shouting and thinking government be booed and humiliated, even when indications of community complicity are also fingered!

What is the game plan: USE THE REALITY IN OUR TEARS FOR POLITICAL SIPS AND REFUSE TO APPRECIATE CONTEXT, GENUINE FAILURES AND EVEN MODEST MILESTONES.

Politicisation of insecurity is growing ahead of 2027 with excitement ALWAYS to turn community pain and calamity into political weapons. Also by creating tales of contests that do not speak to solutions or mutuality to address insecurity, but absolute blame shouts and even booing of local authorities, traditional and political leadership, and security agencies. The politicisers are in a hurry to refer to compromises from security agencies (genuine too), but perpetually mum, mute even when security agencies record progress or are even themselves are killed as they try protect us. WHY IS BALANCED NARRATIVES DISDAINED even by elite elements like Senator Moro and his likes?!

With 2027 elections getting fiercer and threatening, Benue people must know that we seriously want insecurity tackled, decades ago. Efforts, challenges and modest gains also exist, if not so we would have since been consumed as Benue State.

A secured Benue is evolving amidst the negative resolve of terrorist to keep killing, stealing and destroying. If resolving insecurity is a merely an event the storms would have been stilled many years ago.

Benue is on a journey to freedom and peace but we must be guided despite our pains to discern or decipher the new methodologies to POLITICISE INSECURITY and discredit little little efforts by all publics towards a secured Benue, and by Implication a SECURED nation undergoing security 'misnomerisms' for many years.

Samuel Agwa, Convener, Benue Open Governance Society (BOGS)
[email protected]

17th July, 2026
photo clip anonymously taken from social media...

Benue Open Governance Society

13/08/2026

27/07/2026

23/07/2026

19/07/2026

18/07/2026

17/07/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organization

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request