Ethnic profiling threatens Nigeria’s security fight as Police arrest 12 suspects

By Olusegun Odunewu

The arrest of 12 suspected kidnappers and informants in Kaduna State has renewed concerns about ethnic profiling in Nigeria’s fight against insecurity, with warnings that associating criminality with particular ethnic groups could stigmatise innocent citizens and undermine efforts to identify actual perpetrators.

The Kaduna State Police Command recently announced the arrest of eight suspected kidnappers around Millennium City and Maraban Rido, alongside four suspected informants. AK-47 rifles were reportedly recovered, while investigations into the suspects and their alleged activities are ongoing.

The eight suspects were identified as Mathias Moses, Makama John, Dauda Murna, Usman Abdullahi, Abubakar Sulaiman, Saleh Abdullahi, Usman Muhammed and Tafarki Audu.

The four suspected informants were named as Shuaibu Sabiu, Audu Makama, Simon Moses and Amadu Mathew.

Although the arrests represent a development in the police investigation, the suspects’ names alone cannot establish their ethnicity, religion or criminal responsibility. Their alleged involvement in kidnapping and related offences must be determined through evidence and due legal process.

The case has also highlighted a wider question confronting Nigeria’s security debate: whether the tendency to assign criminality to particular ethnic identities is helping the country confront insecurity or deepening the divisions that make collective action against crime more difficult.

How ethnic profiling distorts the security debate

The argument against ethnic profiling is straightforward: criminal responsibility belongs to individuals, not entire communities.

Yet discussions about banditry, kidnapping and terrorism in Nigeria frequently extend beyond the conduct of suspected perpetrators to assumptions about their ethnic or religious backgrounds.

READ ALSO; Bandits kill humanitarian worker, shoot father in Sokoto attack

Such generalisations can transform the actions of a few suspects into accusations against millions of people who share a perceived identity but have no involvement in crime.

The danger is that public suspicion becomes detached from evidence. A name, language, place of origin or religious identity may be treated as an indicator of criminality, even when none establishes whether an individual participated in an offence.

This approach can also weaken public cooperation with security agencies. Communities that believe they are collectively blamed for crimes may become less willing to volunteer information, report suspicious activities or collaborate with law enforcement.

More importantly, ethnic stereotypes can divert attention from the evidence investigators need to establish criminal networks, including financial transactions, weapons supplies, communications, logistics and relationships among suspected perpetrators.

The identities of the people behind kidnapping networks should therefore be established through credible investigations rather than assumptions based on ethnicity.

The danger of collective blame

The problem is not limited to Nigeria. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim faced heightened suspicion, discrimination and profiling in various settings.

The experience illustrates how the actions of particular individuals or organisations can fuel hostility towards people who share a religious or perceived ethnic identity but have no connection to the crimes.

Similar reasoning applies to the activities of international terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda, Islamic State and Boko Haram. Their actions should be attributed to the organisations and individuals responsible, rather than used to characterise entire religious populations.

The same principle applies when Nigerians are involved in drug trafficking or other crimes abroad. The wrongdoing of individual offenders does not establish that Nigerians as a whole are criminals.

In Nigeria, where ethnic identity remains a sensitive factor in public discourse, such distinctions are particularly important. Collective blame can reinforce prejudice, strain relationships between communities and create new grievances in an environment already challenged by violence and displacement.

Fulani communities also suffer from insecurity

The debate over banditry in north-western and north-central Nigeria frequently involves allegations concerning armed groups described as Fulani bandits.

However, identifying particular suspects as Fulani does not justify treating Fulani people collectively as perpetrators.

Fulani communities, like other populations affected by insecurity, include people who have suffered kidnappings, killings, cattle rustling, displacement and the destruction of livelihoods.

An advocate for peaceful Fulani communities argues that their experiences as victims of violence are often overlooked when public discussions focus exclusively on the ethnic identity attributed to suspected perpetrators.

The advocate also disclosed that a documentary examining Fulani communities affected by banditry would soon be released, with the aim of bringing greater attention to their experiences.

The documentary’s findings, when made public, could contribute to a fuller understanding of how insecurity affects different communities. Its claims and evidence would, however, need to be assessed on their merits.

Recognising the suffering of Fulani victims does not diminish the experiences of other communities affected by kidnapping and banditry. Rather, it reinforces the need to protect all citizens without discrimination.

What the Kaduna arrests should reveal

The more consequential questions arising from the Kaduna arrests concern the alleged criminal network, the evidence connecting the suspects to kidnapping, and whether the investigation can identify those financing, facilitating and executing the crimes.

Investigators will need to establish the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the AK-47 rifles, the alleged roles of the eight suspected kidnappers and the four suspected informants, and any links to other suspects or criminal operations.

The police should also provide updates as the investigation progresses, subject to legitimate operational and legal constraints.

These are more useful lines of inquiry than attempts to infer criminality from the names of the suspects.

If the investigation establishes that individuals from particular communities participated in the alleged crimes, their actions should be addressed through the justice system. If other individuals from different backgrounds were involved, they should be investigated under the same standards.

A credible security response must follow evidence wherever it leads, without protecting suspects because of their identity or targeting innocent people because of theirs.

Security requires evidence, not stereotypes

Nigeria’s fight against kidnapping, banditry and terrorism depends on effective intelligence gathering, professional investigations, accountable law enforcement and cooperation between security agencies and the public.

Ethnic profiling offers none of these guarantees. Instead, it risks creating suspicion where evidence is absent and overlooking offenders whose backgrounds do not fit prevailing stereotypes.

The principle is clear: a suspect should be investigated because of credible evidence linking the person to an alleged offence, not because of a name, ethnicity or religion.

The Kaduna arrests provide an opportunity to focus public attention on the evidence, the alleged criminal network and the outcome of the investigation.

Ultimately, whether a perpetrator is Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba, Kanuri, Muslim, Christian or from another background, the standard must remain the same: establish individual responsibility through evidence and apply the law fairly.