Mike Ozekhome
Introduction
When the Forest Hides More than Trees
To paraphrase an old African proverb, “when the forest is silent, beware, it may be plotting”. Nigeria’s forests are no longer just a canopy of trees sheltering wildlife and whispering winds; they have become a theatre of terror. Armed bandits, kidnappers and insurgents have “discovered” what ancient wisdom already knew: that the forest is the perfect hideout. In response, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has proposed a bold and ostensibly visionary plan, the deployment of a National Forest Guard Corps. This move has since sparked hope, scepticism, and fierce Federalism-versus-Unitarianism debates.
At the heart of this strategy, is the ambition to reclaim over 1,129 forest reserves scattered across Nigeria’s sprawling terrain, most of which now serve as havens for terrorists and criminal syndicates. With over 130,000 armed operatives to be recruited and deployed, it is easy to view this initiative as the long-overdue solution to Nigeria’s security woes. But, this move is not just about logistics and boots in the bush; it is about sovereignty, legality, and local legitimacy. Is Tinubu’s forest guard plan a Federal solution to a national emergency, or is it an ill-fated centralisation of local security challenges, enabling the Federal Government to breathe down the necks of State Governments?
To answer this, we must examine the legal, constitutional, and operational frameworks of Tinubu’s initiative, evaluate historical precedents, and analyse the potential risks of imposing a Federally controlled paramilitary force in forests that historically and legally belong to the States. We must also interrogate whether security can be bought with arms alone; or whether it grows from the grassroots up.
But, before we venture into the thicket of policy and power, let us consider the context that birthed this proposal. Nigeria’s forests, which were once ecological sanctuaries, have gradually degenerated into lawless zones of bloodbaths. The green expanse that should echo with bird calls and animal grunts, now reverberate with gunfire. Insecurity in rural and agrarian communities has reached such alarming heights that farmers have virtually abandoned their lands, leading to food insecurity, economic stagnation, and mass displacement. The forests no longer nurture life; they generate death.
Between Policy and Implementation
The Government’s decision to respond with a large-scale recruitment of forest guards may indeed, seem intuitive, after all, it aligns with the global trend of ecological militarisation in fragile States. Yet, the structure of implementation matters deeply. If the architecture of this plan disregards Nigeria’s Federal nature, it risks exacerbating the very crisis it was intended to solve. Forests may be rooted in soil; but the guardianship of that soil is rooted in law, identity, and community ownership. The principle of quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit applies. Forest guards who do not share the language, culture, history or kinship of the terrains they are sent to police, will surely be seen as outsiders. And, such outsiders in the forest may become either victims or villains.
Furthermore, this proposal arrives at a critical moment in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. Debates over State and community policing, restructuring, devolution of powers and regional autonomy are no longer intellectual abstractions; they have become national imperatives. See Sections 215 and 216 of the 1999 Constitution. Tinubu’s plan, whether deliberately or inadvertently, intersects with these gaping fault lines. To superimpose a Federally-managed forest force without recognising the nuanced relationships between State, land and community, is to risk uprooting fragile peace and replacing it with more severe antagonism.
Now, are we really a Federation in truth, or merely in name? I dare say what we operate in the guise of Federalism is actually a unitary form of government. Can national unity be enforced through uniformed patrols, or is it better that it be cultivated through shared values and governance? As we delve deeper, the question is not just who guards the forest, but, who decides who guards the forest, and in whose name. Indeed, a deeper question: Who will guard the Guard?
The Forest, the Federalist and the Federation
Constitutional Realities: The Power of the States Over Forests
In any Federal system, the distribution of power especially over land and internal security, is a defining hallmark. Nigeria’s Federalism, is no exception. The country’s current structure, codified under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), clearly delineates the powers of Federal, State and local governments. See Sections 2(2),3(1-6) of the Constitution. A close reading of Section 7 and the Fourth Schedule (paragraph 2(b)) to the Constitution highlights the responsibilities of Local Government Councils, including the control and regulation of agricultural and natural resources and by extension, includes forest land not reserved to the Federal Government. This immediately places forests, by default, under the control of the States, unless specifically designated otherwise, since Local Governments are located in States.
Furthermore, the Land Use Act, 1978, which is incorporated into the Constitution by reference (Section 315), gives State Governors control over all lands within their territory, excluding those under Federal use, to hold them in trust for the people of their States. The Act empowers Governors to allocate land in urban areas to individuals and organisations, and to oversee the use of non-urban land through Local Government Councils. Consequently, the direct implication is that, any forest or land not classified under National Parks, Federal Reserve zones, or Military Controlled areas, falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the State.
Federal v State Power
Of Nigeria’s 1,129 officially gazetted forest reserves, the vast majority are managed by State Forestry departments under their Ministries of Agriculture, Rural Development or Environment. These include large forest blocks in States like Cross River, Ondo, Ogun, Taraba, and Ekiti, many of which are vital to local economies, ecological sustainability, and food security. The Federal Government only controls forest areas designated as National Parks (such as Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Kainji Lake National Park, Cross River National Park, and Old Oyo National Park), administered under the National Park Service, an agency of the Federal Ministry of Environment.
Attempts to impose direct Federal recruitment and control over forest guards in State-managed forests without legislative amendments or formal agreements, risk violating both the spirit and letter of the law. Even within the Federal legislative framework, forest policing is not explicitly listed on the Exclusive Legislative List, meaning that it falls under either the Concurrent List (shared responsibilities between the Federal and States) or, in most practical scenarios, the Residual List, which is left to States’ discretion.
Unitarianism in Disguise?: The Danger of a Federal Paramilitary Force
Unitarianism masquerading as Federal security cooperation is a deeply sensitive issue in Nigeria, where ethnic plurality, historical grievances, and political mistrust run deep. The idea that over 130,000 armed operatives could be centrally recruited, trained, and deployed under Federal command while ostensibly operating within State territories, is understandably alarming to many stakeholders. It evokes painful memories of other Federally-controlled agencies that have operated with little or no regard for local dynamics, and often with tragic consequences.
The Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) is a case in point. Established as a unit within the Nigeria Police Force, SARS was accused of gross human rights violations, including extra-judicial killings, torture, and extortion. Its Federal command structure meant little accountability to State Governments or communities. The #EndSARS protests of 2020, which began as youth-led demands for Police reforms, quickly morphed into a broader call for systemic change, highlighting the dangers of over-centralised security control architecture.
Similarly, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), while useful in its community protection mandate, has often been accused of operational inefficiencies and jurisdictional clashes with State authorities. Cases of NSCDC operatives acting with impunity or engaging in power struggles with local law enforcement agents, are well documented.
Against this backdrop, Tinubu’s forest guard plan raises critical concerns. How can a Federal command effectively manage such a force across diverse terrains, languages and cultures, without falling into the same trap of over-centralisation and under-accountability? What happens when these guards act outside the law, or when Federal and State authorities disagree on deployment priorities? Who investigates complaints of misconduct, especially in remote rural areas? Who has the final say?
These questions are not merely theoretical. In countries with similar Federal structures, such as India and the United States, forest protection and environmental policing are almost always handled at the State or provincial level, often under decentralised bureaucracies with State-specific laws and enforcement mechanisms. For instance, India’s Forest Protection Committees are embedded in local governance structures, while U.S. State Park Rangers operate independently of Federal policing units, unless specific interstate or Federal crimes are involved. Nigeria’s own Federal structure, should offer no less sophistication. The creation of another Federal paramilitary force, especially one that operates deep in the natives’ forests without local allegiance or accountability, risks becoming not a solution but a security liability, and worse, a political tool in the hands of a powerful centre.
Indigenous Security Models: The Case for Local Recruitment
The wisdom of local recruitment, is both practical and cultural. Insecurity in Nigeria’s forests is not just about guns and patrols, it is about intelligence, relationships and trust. Bandits and criminal syndicates thrive, in environments where locals are alienated from the security structure. Conversely, they are more easily repelled when local vigilantes, hunters and indigenous operatives form part of the security fabric.
The Nigerian Hunter and Forest Security Service (NHFSS), which operates across the 36 States and the FCT Abuja, provides a compelling model. Comprised largely of traditional hunters and forest dwellers, the NHFSS brings a unique blend of tactical expertise and cultural affinity. In States like Kogi, Kebbi and the FCT, NHFSS operatives have been instrumental in intercepting kidnap gangs, uncovering illegal encampments, and collaborating with security agencies. Their effectiveness is rooted not in superior weaponry, but in their deep understanding of their peculiar terrain, their loyalty to the community, and the trust they command from locals.
A retired Army General, Peter Aro, hailed the development as a critical step in addressing rising insecurity within Nigeria’s forested regions, particularly the scourge of banditry, kidnapping, and insurgency. Forest guards must possess field survival skills, terrain literacy, and community integration. These are not qualities one can mass-produce in Abuja, through crash course training programmes. Furthermore, security should be intimately linked to traditional institutions, such as village heads, district councils, and traditional rulers, who provide crucial intelligence and moral authority.
Security Analyst, Chidi Omeje has also pointed out the danger of sending “fresh recruits with basic firearms” into forest zones where criminal elements are known to possess military-grade weapons. He advocates for a dual-layered model, where locally embedded forest guards work alongside the Military and Police, but under local command structures.
There are also precedents for success. The Amotekun Corps in the South West, and the Benue Community Volunteer Guards, are examples of locally-driven initiatives that have shown promising results. While not without their challenges, these Corps are better attuned to the local environment, and have the legitimacy to act swiftly in ways that Federal forces cannot.
Furthermore, a decentralised approach would stimulate local economies. Recruitment of indigenes provides employment, instills civic pride and strengthens the social contract bond. It also ensures that the guards see themselves as protectors, not as occupiers, a distinction that is vital in volatile communities where the line between security agent and aggressor is often thin.
In summary, while the Federal Government has a legitimate role in coordinating national responses to threats, its approach must be that of a facilitator, not a commander. Support through training, funding, surveillance technology (e.g., drones, forest mapping systems), and standard setting is invaluable. But, command and control must remain at the State level, rooted in the soil, culture, language, idiosyncrasies and rhythms of the communities the guards are sworn to protect. (To be continued).
We started this series recently, with an x-ray of policy formation and its implementation, the constitutional status of forest vis-à-vis the States and the Federal Government, and later addressed the issue of policy Unitarianism in disguise, and also a review of indigenous security models and local recruitment of local guards. Today, we shall consider the challenges of evolving the rights and strategy between the forest and firepower; we shall then analyse the question: Are
Between the Forest and the Firepower: Finding the Right Strategy
The Forest as Nigeria’s New Battlefield
Nigeria’s forests, once treasured for their ecological richness and environmental contributions, are increasingly viewed through the lens of national security. Spanning over 10 million hectares which is about 10% of the total land area of Nigeria, Nigeria’s forest reserves are now being infiltrated by violent actors and used as operational bases for bandits, insurgents, arms traffickers, and cross-border criminal networks. These reserves especially those in Kwara, Niger, Benue, Taraba, Zamfara, Kaduna, and Oyo have morphed into de facto war zones, where traditional policing is rendered ineffective and the military often finds itself in reactive mode.
One particularly troubling example is the Kainji Lake National Park, a protected area that spans the borders of Kwara and Niger States. Though it is officially under Federal protection, its vast and difficult-to-monitor terrain makes it a prime corridor for terrorist and bandit movements. According to security reports from the Nigerian Army’s 8 Division, several armed groups have taken advantage of the park’s proximity to Nigeria’s northwestern and central States to establish hidden bases, smuggle arms, and coordinate attacks.
Similarly, the Old Oyo National Park, which straddles Oyo, Kwara, and Niger States, has become a hotspot for criminal activity. Local intelligence from communities surrounding the park, indicates that bandit groups expelled from Zamfara and Katsina have found refuge in this forest. These criminal elements exploit the remoteness of the area and the absence of a permanent security presence, to regroup and launch attacks on nearby settlements.
Beyond national parks, numerous ungazetted forests especially in the Middle Belt serve as strategic hideouts for Fulani militia groups, foreign mercenaries, and rogue elements linked to organised crime. In Benue State, Governor Hyacinth Alia, has repeatedly warned of incursions by foreign terrorists allegedly linked to cross-border herder militias. The Upper Ogun Forest Reserve, a large forest block in Kwara, has also come under scrutiny, following reports that Mahmuda terrorist group members use it to transit between Nigeria and the Republic of Benin.
The implications of these developments, are profound. Without forest security, Nigeria not only risks losing its forests to environmental degradation, but also ceding large swaths of land to non-State actors, thus, turning forest reserves into breeding grounds for violent extremism. Yet, while the urgency to act is undeniable now, the quality of response matters more than its speed.
Deploying undertrained or poorly equipped forest guards into these volatile environments, would be akin to sending lambs into a lion’s den. The intelligence, terrain mastery, and firepower required in such engagements go far beyond the remit of conventional paramilitary forces. You cannot send men with shotguns, into a forest ruled by terrorists with RPGs. This is not hyperbole, it is a stark reality, backed by recurring video evidence of bandits showcasing sophisticated weaponry, satellite communication tools, and, in some cases, armoured vehicles.
Military Might vs Paramilitary Prowess: A Strategic Dilemma
At the heart of Nigeria’s forest security conundrum, lies a fundamental strategic mismatch. On one side is the proposal to deploy lightly armed forest guards; on the other is a threat landscape populated by insurgent groups with military-grade capabilities. Nigeria remains one of the most affected countries by terrorism, with Boko Haram, ISWAP, and multiple bandit groups shifting focus from urban bombings to rural forest insurgency.
Reports confirm that many of these groups are now entrenched in forests stretching from Zamfara to Taraba, taking advantage of limited surveillance and sluggish security response. These criminal outfits reportedly employ rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), improvised explosive devices (IEDs), drones and night-vision equipment, a sophisticated arsenal far superior to the basic AK-47s or pump-action rifles many forest guards are expected to wield. This power disparity raises a serious question: Can forest guards, even in significant numbers, hold their ground against such adversaries?
A Desirable Narrative
The answer, quite evidently, is no, at least not alone. This does not render the forest guard model irrelevant, but it necessitates a reimagining of their role. Forest guards should not be conceptualised as primary combatants, but as intelligence operatives, terrain scouts, and first responders. Their role must be complementary, not confrontational, with local guards. Embedded within local communities, they are best positioned to detect unusual movements, provide early warnings, and assist in planning police or military interventions.
Such integration would mirror the highly successful model employed by the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) in the North-East, which supported the Nigerian military in combatting Boko Haram. The CJTF did not go to war with terrorists alone. Rather, they provided community intelligence, identified suspects, and enabled smoother military operations. The same should apply to forest guards. Deployed as community embedded liaisons, their greatest strength lies not in brute force but in proximity, familiarity, acculturation and adaptability. They must work in synergy with the local guards, Army, Police, DSS, and NSCDC, ensuring that information gathered at the grassroots level informs strategic planning at the Federal level.
Another vital element, is equipment and communication infrastructure. In many rural areas, mobile networks are poor, and emergency communication is non-existent. Forest guards should be equipped with satellite phones, GPS trackers, surveillance drones, and bodycams. Training must include combat survival, hostage negotiation, and tactical withdrawal protocols. It’s not enough to train them how to fight; they must also learn when, where and how not to fight.
The Path Forward: A True Federal Partnership
While President Tinubu’s forest guard initiative is ambitious and well-intentioned, its execution must be shaped by constitutional fidelity, operational pragmatism, and community trust. Nigeria’s diversity requires policies that are locally adaptive, but nationally coordinated. A strategic roadmap should therefore, include the following:
Legislative Reform and National Forest Security Act
This Act should define the parameters of forest security, across the Federation. It must empower States to create, manage, and control forest guard units while providing room for Federal assistance in the form of funding, training standards, and interoperability protocols with Federal security services. The Act should also clarify jurisdictional boundaries, ensuring there’s no operational conflict between Federal and State forces.
Indigenous Recruitment and Decentralised Command
Only indigenous recruits, drawn from host communities, should serve in forest guard units. This principle ensures language proficiency, cultural awareness, and community acceptance. State Governments, in partnership with local traditional rulers, should drive recruitment processes, with background checks vetted by local Police and DSS operatives. This will mitigate risks of infiltration by criminal elements.
Technology-Driven Surveillance Infrastructure
Equipping forest guards with modern tools is not optional; it is imperative. Drone surveillance, motion-triggered cameras, satellite-linked walkie-talkies, and forest mapping systems should be deployed. The National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) and Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) can play a supporting role, in developing and deploying such technologies.
Strategic Federal Support, Not Operational Control
The role of the Federal Ministry of Environment and Office of the National Security Adviser must be clearly coordinative, not administrative. Federal agencies should support States through centralised training academies, logistics depots, and intelligence sharing platforms, but, the command structure should remain domiciled in State Ministries or specially created State Security Commissions.
Community Accountability and Oversight Boards
Every State should establish Forest Guard Oversight Committees composed of community leaders, the youth, civil society groups, religious figures, and security agencies. These committees will track operations, address complaints, and ensure that forest guards act within the bounds of law and ethics. Regular town hall reports and audits, should be mandated.
Integrate Environmental Protection and Counter-Insurgency Goals
One major flaw in Nigeria’s security strategy, is the siloed approach to environmental policy and national security. The forest guard initiative offers a unique opportunity to bridge this divide. Forest guards should be cross-trained in both environmental protection and tactical field surveillance, thereby serving a dual purpose: preserving Nigeria’s biodiversity, while countering environmental crimes that fund insurgent activities.
Illegal logging, poaching, and charcoal trading are multi-billion-Naira black-market economies that fuel insecurity in rural areas. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, environmental crimes in West Africa generate funds that are often funnelled to criminal cartels and armed groups. A forest security force that understands these dynamics, can better dismantle such networks.
It is imperative to partner with the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nigerian Conservation Foundation, and international organisations like UNEP, to embed environmental crime detection into forest guard training modules.
Establish a Centralised Forest Intelligence Command
Given the complexity of forest based criminal operations and their links to wider terrorism and transnational crime, it is essential to build a dedicated forest intelligence infrastructure. This unit, the Centralised Forest Intelligence Command (CFIC), should be a joint inter-agency platform bringing together the Police, NCDC, DSS, Military Intelligence, Nigerian Immigration Service, local guards and Forest Guard Commanders from each State.
CFIC would use advanced tools such as geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), and drone reconnaissance to provide real-time threat mapping, track insurgent movements, and anticipate forest-to-urban migration of threats. Such an initiative would vastly improve response time, and prevent security breaches before they happen.
The CFIC should be integrated into Nigeria’s National Security Architecture under the supervision of the National Security Adviser, but operated through a State Federal coordination model with joint personnel and interlinked command centres.
Promote Cross-Border Forest Security Cooperation
Given that Nigeria shares porous forest borders with Benin Republic, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon, it is vital to recognise the transnational dimension of forest insecurity. Bandits and militants frequently move across these borders, exploiting weak surveillance and diplomatic inertia.
Nigeria must lead in establishing a Regional Forest Security Pact, in collaboration with ECOWAS and the African Union (AU) security platforms. This pact would promote joint patrols, shared intelligence, coordinated raids, and the establishment of joint forest monitoring stations in border regions like Borno, Taraba, Cross River, and Sokoto.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should work with ECOWAS to initiate bilateral and multilateral forest security agreements, underpinned by joint training programmes and extradition protocols for forest-based offenders.
Conclusion
Where the Trees Stand Tall, So too Must the Constitution
In the final analysis, Nigeria’s Forest Guard initiative under President Bola Tinubu offers more than just a policy experiment; it presents a litmus test for the country’s commitment to Federalism, local empowerment, administration and smart security strategy. The forests in question may be dense with trees, but the issues surrounding them are denser still: constitutional authority, operational viability, regional identity, and national unity.
We have seen how the forests have evolved from mere ecological zones into the dark sanctuaries of insurgents, traffickers, and mercenaries. We have seen how well meaning central interventions, if not delicately structured, can become bulldozers flattening both local agency and constitutional principles. And, we have seen how a locally grounded, technologically equipped, and constitutionally-compliant model can actually work transforming the forest guard idea from a controversial headline into a security legacy.
But, let us be clear, you do not fix a leaky roof by installing a chandelier. You do not solve rural insecurity, with a flood of centrally deployed gunmen unfamiliar with the peculiar terrain or the tongues spoken therein. Instead, Nigeria must adopt a model that blends local trust with Federal muscle, traditional knowledge with modern technology, and constitutional wisdom with operational pragmatism.
The forest is watching, as are the communities who live by it, feed from it, and now fear it. Let us ensure that the guardians we appoint are not strangers in camouflage, but sons and daughters of the soil; trained, trusted, and tethered to the trees they are sworn to protect. After all, if we cannot see the forest for the law, we may end up losing both. And, in that case, the trees would not be the only casualty left standing in silence; our Democracy may also be.
*This piece by Mike Ozekome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, first appeared in Thisday