A governor’s strong words have sparked debate about sovereignty, security, and the safety of civilians in Nigeria’s fight against terror.
A Statement That Reverberates
When Borno State Governor Babagana Zulum said, “any mortal killed by a bomb at Jili by NAF is a terrorist,” he was doing more than just commenting on a military operation.
He took a clear stance, fully supporting the Nigerian Air Force’s version of the April 2026 Jilli airstrike.
The military said the strike targeted a terrorist logistics hub and resulted in many deaths. Human rights groups and local officials warned that civilians might have been killed. But Zulum dismissed these concerns. According to him, there were no innocents at Jilli, only insurgents who were killed.
Sovereignty and Security over Sympathy
Zulum’s message is a clear political choice. He wants to support the military’s campaign and protect it from accusations of mistakes.
By saying everyone killed was a terrorist, he tries to reinforce the state’s authority and back the government’s counterinsurgency efforts.
His words are meant to warn civilians against associating with insurgents or going to dangerous areas. They also show support for the armed forces and a strong stance. In this region, the government’s authority is often challenged by Boko Haram and ISWAP.
But using such language removes important details. In conflict, it is often hard to tell civilians from insurgents.
Markets, villages, and roads serve both as community lifelines and as supply routes for insurgents. By strongly denying civilian deaths, Zulum risks pushing away communities trapped between insurgents and the military.
The Human Rights Dilemma
Groups like Amnesty International warn that denying any civilian deaths hurts accountability and increases distrust.
If proof of civilian deaths comes out, Zulum’s statement could seem like an attempt to silence critics and excuse the military.
This raises bigger questions about Nigeria’s fight against terror: can the government fight hard against insurgents without giving up its duty to protect innocent people?
Political Messaging in a War Zone
Zulum’s words also have a political purpose. As governor of Borno, the center of Nigeria’s insurgency, he needs to show strength.
People in his state want security. By supporting the military, he shows he will not back down in the fight against terror.
But this kind of talk can make things worse for people wrongly called terrorists. Insurgents use anger to recruit, so these messages can have the opposite effect.
Nigeria’s Balancing Act
The Jilli airstrike and Zulum’s reaction show Nigeria’s bigger problem: how to balance security and sovereignty with human rights and legitimacy.
The government wants to prove its military actions are accurate, justified, and effective. But war is complicated. Denying harm to civilians can weaken trust both in Nigeria and internationally.
In the end, Zulum’s statement is more about the people living in Borno than those who died at Jilli. It serves as a warning, a way to protect himself politically, and a show of loyalty to the military.
But his statement also shows the weakness in Nigeria’s fight against insurgents. The country is trying to win back its land and people. The biggest challenge is to defeat terrorists without losing its moral standing.
The governor may have wanted to sound sure of himself, but his words leave Nigeria facing a tough question: if every casualty is called a terrorist, who stands up for the civilians caught in the middle?