"The War on Terror in Nigeria" written by Prof Uji Wilfred Terlumun. Department of History and International Studies, Federal University of Lafia
Published on January 11, 2026
"There is a distinction between ethnic militia groups fueled by the desire of fair representation, equity and justice, to that of radicalized Islamic political groups with the ideological thrust of conquest and the goal to establish an Islamic State".
When I published the book titled " The Institutionalization of Herdsmen Occupation of North Central of Nigeria" some of my colleagues at the University, those of the radical islamic persuasion were aggrieved that the book was majorly an ethnic profiling one that targeted the Fulani Ethnic Extraction as terrorist and bandits.
The inspiration for the book came as a result of a personal experience of my village, close to Abinsi, in Guma Local Government of Benue State, that came under the invasion and occupation by militant herdsmen for over two years between 2017 to 2018 respectively.
We became displaced and our farm lands were forcefully occupied by militant herdsmen who had enough fire power to kill and destroy.
The personal tragedy turned into a scholarly adventure as I began to ask some fundamental questions about Nigeria under a federal structure, the existential threats of ethnic minorities by ethnic majorities under a tripartite system inherited from the British colonial past.
Nigeria inherited a tripartite system that has defined and shaped the country as the legacy and inheritance of the dominant three ethnic nationalities of the Yoruba, Fulani and Ibo, the pivotal framework around which Nigeria, her politics and resources, spins around.
From the beginning of the foundations of modern Nigeria, the nation state was defined in such a way that gave these ethnic majorities preponderance over the control of politics and natural resources.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo raised the alarm about an ethnic agenda by the Fulani Militant Herdsmen Occupation of Nigeria. Former President Mohammedu Buhari, one of the grand patrons of Meyyiti Allah Katohore, did not hide his desire and wish for Fulani herdsmen across Nigeria to have grazing colonies carved out exclusively for them in each of the Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven Local Governments of Nigeria.
On paper, this land grabbing agenda was not enforced but it was brought in through the back doors by the sponsor of militant herdsmen expansion across Nigeria exploiting the ideas of climatic change, population explosion and resource control dynamics.
In one way or the other, directly and indirectly, state resources and the might of the state has been deployed in the militant expansion of herdsmen across Nigeria and their occupation of "ungoverned spaces" especially in North Central of Nigeria.
The herdsmen militant expedition dates back to several decades of the planing by Meyyiti Allah Katohore exploiting the network of herdsmen across the Sahel and tl Sub Saharan Africa. Decades of planing of investment into arms and armed groups led to some of most violent conflicts and genocide of modern Nigeria's history, something that the Far Radical Islamic North of Nigeria has come out to refute and deny.
It is understandable why the Far Radical North is in defence of radical Islamization and extremism that has threatened the peaceful coexistence and Unity of the Nigerian State.
The fact is that Islam is a peaceful religion that preaches peaceful coexistence just as their are peaceful herdsmen who do not subscribe to the idea of militant herdsmen expansionism. It is important to make these clarification and distinction at the conceptual and theoretical level.
I need the clarification to avoid being misunderstood by the radical religious left who views the war on terror as a war on Islam. This is perspective and angle that dominates the mindset of the far Islamic radicals across the world including Nigeria.
What exactly is the point in militant political Islam? Let me choose these terms with care, is there a point and a place where some group of persons armed with arms and weapons have mobilized the vehicle of religion, for conquest and occupation?
Some religion like christianity may have past history of militant expansionism as in the wars of the crusade, but, there is no where in the history of modern Nigeria that christian groups mobilized with arms and ideology, embarked on state conquest empire building process with the declaration of a christian state hoisting a flag. Except during the age of European colonization, though subject to debates and polemics, christianity has never been deployed ideologically and militarily as an empire building political process and experience that sought expression in the establishment of a christian state under christian law.
The christian experience is in direct contrast from the experience of the Boko Haram and the Islamic State as well as other correlates such as the militant herdsmen.
All across the North East of Nigeria and the North West, Boko Haram and the Islamic State mobilized the Islamic resource and manpower for conquest and political empire building process.
Militant Islamic Groups fought pitch battles with the Nigerian military, something that christian groups have never done, destroyed the military and hoisted their flag of hegemony and state identity.
In the last two decades, under the civilian administration of President Good luck Jonathan, President Mohammedu Buhari, to the present administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, political Islam mobilizing military terror and radicalized Islamic ideology has waged a consistent war against Nigeria and her people across ethnic and religious divide.
The United States of America as well as some other foreign nations have through collaboration and partnerships, both in military and intelligence gathering, assisted Nigeria to defeat the rising threat of the Islamic State engineered by armed groups and men.
In the Middle East, radical islamic groups are a terror to the ruling Islamic status quo. The Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have series of collaboration and partnerships with the United States of America on how to destroy and neutralize these terror groups. What is happening is a global partnership against Islamic terror something that both Russia and China cannot tolerate within their domestic polity. Globally, the ace is turning against the patrons of terror and terror groups.
Across the world, Islamic terror groups have killed and destroyed population on both divide of the ethnic and religious persuasion. When Shiites Muslims from Iran invaded the holy shrine in Mecca, it was an invasion of radical islam against more moderate and conservative Islam. There has always been casualties on both sides, causalities of massacre and genocide arising from a conflict of twisted ideological Islam.
The far radical North in Nigeria has done a great deal of strategic communications warfare since the United States designated Nigeria as country of particular concern. Strategic communication warfare has mobilized all forms of propaganda and twisted narrative using the international media and the social media, to deconstruct the idea of a christian genocide in Nigeria.
What the radical North has failed to know is that the North has been the home and bedrock of militant Islamic Groups with a political ambition to wipe out populations and grab lands inhabited by communities that are christians in identity and faith.
Nobody disagrees with the fact muslim populations and communities may have been victims of violent conflicts, but, that, there is no where in the Far North where militant Christian groups armed and supported by the state, wiped out and decimated muslim communities for conquer, empire building and plunder.
The United States of America, through the Religious Act of Freedom of Worship and Expression, is an open declaration of war against radical islamic groups of whatever persuasion, who has invaded and taken hostage christian communities , but more importantly, imposed a Sharia State , a direct threat to religious expression, on minority christian communities in Nigeria.
Since the United States declaration of Nigeria as a country of particular concern, while political leaders of the Islamic world in Nigeria have mobilized both media and society against the planned United States war on terror, political leaders of the christian persuasion have continued to maintain a deep silence of conspiracy over the genocide happenings in Nigeria.
In North Central of Nigeria, Governor A. A Sule of Nassarawa State, has not failed in the mobilization of the media using state resources to denounce the existence of a genocide against christian communities in Nigeria.
Governor Sule outburst is understandable, coming at the heels of the Yelwata Massacre, on a close boarder with Nasarawa State and Benue State which attracted the condemnation of the international community factored in the Papacy in the Vatican City.
One would expect that his counterpart, the Governor of Benue State, Reverend Father Hyacinth Alia, a Catholic Priest , would had leverage on the concern of the international community to refute the twisted narrative of his counterpart in Nasarawa State.
The Islamic world in Nigeria has so far, a well coordinated approach and propaganda to change the United States narrative of genocide against christian communities in Nigeria. From the highest political command of the Sokoto Caliphate to distinguished senators of the National Assembly down to the Governor's of States, there is an organized response that has refuted the claims of christian genocide as a basis for the United States war on terror in Nigeria. As far as the Islamic world in Nigeria is concerned, the claims of genocide are mere fabrications put together perhaps a disillusioned christian community. The argument of the Islamic community further suggest that what is happening in Nigeria is a general state of insecurity and insurgency in which the casualties of violent conflicts are both christian and muslims, and, more importantly, the violent conflicts, not genocides, are a product of the contradictions of Nigeria's domestic challenges which can be resolved internally without a foreign intervention.
Governor Charles Soludo of Anambra State added his voice in the denial and refutation of genocide claims christian communities. In his words, there is a violent uprisings of christian groups killing christians in Nigeria that has nothing to do with the militant expansion of political Islam.
The advocacy of Governor Soludo and the silence of Governor Alia are both growing conspiracies of christian political leaders in Nigeria towards the United States that has designated Nigeria as a country of particular concern.The United States of America is aware of the globalization of Islamic Militant Groups spreading through a process of migrations of armed men and armed groups across the Sahara and the Sahel Region into Nigeria in particular. Northern Nigeria and the Middle Belt has become one of the nightmares of the worst orchestrated theatre of violent conflicts targeted mostly at christian communities and population. All of the militant groups from the Sahel, the Boko Haram and the ISIS have their roots in Islamic radicalism that recruits their followers through a process of radicalization. These radicalized militant groups, supported by the political ruling class of Nigeria, fueled by a twist ideological version of Islam have unleashed terror on the Nigerian landscape in the last three decades. The Chibok Girls and Daupchi Girls hostages are powerful reminders of the activities of the Boko Haram Group against minority christian groups in Northern Nigeria. There is need to separate between a terrorist group driven by Islamic radicalization and militia groups fueled by ethnic and communal violence. The two are not the same by their ideological content as well as the set targeted groups. Society in Nigeria is generally volatile with empty spaces or governing spaces contested by state and non state actors. The foreign policy thrust of Donald Trump within the framework of the United States freedom of religious expression and conscience is something that is dated to the very idea that established the United States of America as a place where people can have access to God and the freedom of worship without intimidation and repression. The idea of religious freedom was more applicable to christian groups who saw the United States as the bastion of freedom that protects christian rights of identity and worship without fear and intimidation. One look at Northern Nigeria tells us that there is no such rights in Nigeria. The very idea of the imposition of Sharia law is a the negation of the fundamental rights of christians to a unique identity and consciousness. Even on our University campuses and public institutions across Northern Nigeria, Islamic hegemony, through the establishment of mosques and leadership recruitment, imposes a world of intimidation and fear on the minds of christians. From the Pleateu to the Benue Valley, christian communities have been profiled for the worse modern genocide and bloodiest histories before us. What has the Federal Government done to assure minority christian groups of the unique identity and freedom of worship. We are aware that our government has deliberately refused to designate all the militant Islamic groups as terrorist groups even though these groups are on the top list of terrorist groups in the world. Leadership Recruitment in public institutions in the Federal Service is influenced more by religious considerations. We are living Withneses of the Muslim - Muslim Ticket in Nigeria both at the Governorship and Presidential levels. All the Vice Chancellors of Federal Universities except Benue and Pleateu States, are Muslims. Are these mere coincidence or a glaring evidence of the lack of religious freedom in Nigeria. At the Federal University of Lafia where I lecture, minority groups, particularly christians, do not have a freedom of expression or conscience. A Christian stands rusticated to refer to the Boko Haram as terrorist group within roots in radical Islamism. This is the reality called Nigeria. Unites States foreign policy has its limitations but one thing is clear, since the end of World War II, the United States of America is well armed and prepared to destroy and uproot political Islam that has taken the form of a militant approach that threatens world peace and freedom. There is hardly a radicalized christian group with international connections and support that is well armed and has taken up a violent and military resistance against the Nigerian State targeting Muslim population with a forceful expansion across Northern Nigeria. Such a thing does not exist anywhere. There is a distinction between ethnic militia groups fueled by the desire of fair representation, equity and justice, to that of radicalized Islamic political groups with the ideological thrust of conquest and the goal to establish an Islamic State. The later defines the United States policy towards Nigeria, the prevention of the establishment of an Islamic State that will wipe out christians and the denial of the fundamental right of worship. Uji, Wilfred
Prof Uji Wilfred Terlumun.
Department of History and International Studies, Federal University of Lafia
Comments
January 11, 2026
Erudite Prof, I salute you for your courage in bringing down the reality of the state of the nation particularly as it affects your people to bear. This is well captivating. I wish to make my own input on the state of insecurity in the federal capital Territory despite being the seat of power that house the President, The National Assembly, the Supreme Court and the Headquarters of the security forces.
*Insecurity in Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory: Ungoverned Spaces, State Denial, and the Crisis of Federal Authority. A Contributory Note on the War on Terror and the Fragility of Nigeria’s Political Centre*.
*Introduction*:
Abuja and the Illusion of Absolute State Power. The Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, represents the symbolic heart of the Nigerian state. It is the seat of executive power, legislative authority, judicial finality, and diplomatic presence. In theory and constitutional imagination, Abuja ought to be the safest space in the federation—secure, neutral, and insulated from the centrifugal forces of ethnic, religious, and regional violence that have historically troubled Nigeria.
Yet, in practice, Abuja has become a microcosm of Nigeria’s national insecurity crisis. Kidnappings, armed banditry, and the occupation of surrounding forest belts by non-state armed actors have exposed a disturbing contradiction: the Nigerian state struggles to guarantee security even at the centre of its own sovereignty.
This paradox raises fundamental questions about the nature of state power, territorial control, and the sincerity of Nigeria’s declared “war on terror.”
*Historical Context*: From Federal Sanctuary to Contested Territory
Abuja was created to escape the political volatility of Lagos and the ethnicized power struggles of regional capitals. The 1976 Federal Capital Territory Act and later Section 297 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) vested absolute control of the territory in the Federal Government.
For decades, this arrangement appeared effective. However, since the escalation of Boko Haram insurgency (post-2009), the proliferation of armed banditry in the North-West, and the diffusion of weapons from the Sahelian conflict system, Abuja has steadily lost its insulation from violence.
Armed actors displaced from the North-East and North-West gradually penetrated the forest corridors surrounding the FCT—Bwari, Kuje, Abaji, and the Abuja–Kaduna axis—transforming them into operational sanctuaries.
This pattern aligns with what security scholars describe as the migration of insecurity from peripheries to centres when states fail to decisively dismantle armed networks (Ayoob, 2007; Williams, 2018).
*Patterns and Forms of Insecurity in the FCT*.
1. Highway Terror and Kidnapping Economy
Major access routes to Abuja—particularly Abuja–Kaduna, Abuja–Lokoja, and Abuja–Keffi—have become theatres of abduction, ransom extraction, and armed ambush. These routes are strategic arteries linking the capital to the rest of the federation, and their insecurity undermines both economic life and national integration.
2. Satellite Town Vulnerability
Satellite towns such as Bwari, Gwagwalada, Kuje, and Abaji experience:
Weak police presence
Slow emergency response
Recurrent night raids and abductions
These spaces reveal the uneven geography of security within the FCT, where elite districts are heavily guarded while peripheral communities are exposed.
3. Forests as Ungoverned Spaces
The forests surrounding Abuja have effectively become ungoverned spaces, a concept widely used in counterterrorism literature to describe territories where the state’s authority is nominal or absent (Rotberg, 2004).
Despite repeated military operations, these areas continue to host:
Kidnap camps
Arms caches
Mobile armed groups
State Capacity, Security Architecture, and Institutional Failure
Nigeria’s security architecture remains highly centralized, as reflected in:
Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution (Nigeria Police Force). Exclusive control of armed forces by the Federal Government. However, centralization has not translated into effectiveness. The insecurity of Abuja reflects:
Poor intelligence coordination,
Over-militarization without sustained territorial control, Reactive deployments rather than preventive security. The National Counter Terrorism Strategy (NACTEST, 2016; revised 2021) emphasizes intelligence-led operations and community resilience, yet implementation remains weak, particularly in civilian–military coordination within the FCT.
Elite Denialism and the Politics of Image Management. A defining feature of Abuja’s insecurity is official denialism. The political elite remains reluctant to openly acknowledge the scale of insecurity in the capital, largely because Abuja’s safety is tied to the legitimacy of the state itself. Insecurity is frequently reframed as:
“Isolated criminal incidents”, “Economic crimes”, divorced from broader terror networks. This mirrors the wider national tendency to blur distinctions between:
Ideological terrorism, Armed banditry,
Organized criminal violence.
Such narrative management weakens public trust and delays decisive policy response.
*Abuja within Nigeria’s National Insecurity Matrix:*
The insecurity of the FCT cannot be analytically separated from Nigeria’s broader crisis:
Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgency in the North-East, Banditry and arms economies in the North-West, and the Militant herdsmen violence in the Middle Belt. The failure to decisively defeat or dismantle these armed formations has produced a spillover effect, with Abuja becoming a convergence zone of unresolved conflicts.
This reality challenges claims that Nigeria’s insecurity can be contained geographically or rhetorically minimized.
*Implications for Citizenship, Federalism, and State Legitimacy*:
The inability of the state to secure its capital has far-reaching implications:
Erosion of citizens’ confidence in the social contract,
Normalization of self-help security and vigilantism, Diplomatic embarrassment and international concern
Questioning of Nigeria’s effective sovereignty.
As scholars of state theory argue, security is the first test of state legitimacy (Hobbes; Weber; Migdal).
*Conclusion*:
Abuja’s insecurity is not an accident, nor is it merely criminal. It is the consequence of prolonged policy hesitation, elite denial, and the failure to confront armed non-state actors with clarity and consistency.
A state that cannot secure its capital cannot convincingly claim victory in any war on terror.
To secure Abuja is to:
Reassert federal authority, Reclaim ungoverned spaces, Restore citizens’ confidence, Demonstrate genuine commitment to national security beyond rhetoric. Until then, Abuja will remain not just a capital under threat, but a symbol of Nigeria’s unresolved security contradictions.
Tanimu Idris, Esq.
Legal Practitioner and Security Analyst.
09022250009.
barristertanimu77@gmail.com
*References.*
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
2. Federal Capital Territory Act, 1976.
3. Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), National Counter Terrorism Strategy (NACTEST), 2016 & 2021.
4. Rotberg, R. (2004). When States Fail: Causes and Consequences.
5. Ayoob, M. (2007). State Making, State Breaking, and State Failure.
6. Williams, P. (2018). War and Conflict in Africa.
January 11, 2026
Prof.,
Thank you for your courageous and intellectually rigorous intervention on this deeply sensitive and consequential subject. My own position on this matter is simple, principled, and grounded in conscience.
I neither subscribe to Christianity nor Islam; however, I remain a man of conscience—an entitlement firmly guaranteed under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
And I have always maintained that every human being is born with a conscience, but religion is acquired.
Permit me to quote verbatim ad literatim Articles 18, 8 and Section 38…”
1. Article 18 — Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948)
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
2. Article 8 — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR, 1981)
“Freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed. No one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms.”
3. Section 38(1) — Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended)
“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
Prof., I would also like to draw attention to Section 10 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended), which provides that:
“The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.”
This provision, read together with Section 38(1) on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, enshrines the secular character of the Nigerian state. It ensures that no religion—Christianity, Islam, or any other—can claim official status or privilege, and that all citizens are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, belief, and expression.
Even more importantly, in the university community—where intellectual rigor, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth are meant to lead society by example—this principle is particularly urgent. I completely agree with your observation that, whether in the South or the North, heads of institutions should never be appointed or chosen based on their religious beliefs. When such positions are influenced by religion rather than merit, our education system—and by extension, the society it shapes—remains at risk of stagnation, bias, and peril.
In the context of the issues you raise regarding political Islam, militant herdsmen, and the broader insecurity in North Central Nigeria, Section 10 provides a constitutional anchor for my position:
The Nigerian state and its institutions must remain neutral in religious matters, neither favoring nor enforcing the ideology of any faith.
No individual or group may mobilize the authority of the state—or its institutions—to impose a religious agenda, including through coercion or occupation.
All citizens, including those of minority religions or none, are constitutionally protected, and have the right to live, learn, and express their conscience freely.
This reinforces the broader principle that freedom of conscience, equality, and merit-based governance are essential not only for societal justice, but for the intellectual and moral health of our universities, which must lead by example for the Nigerian society at large.
Furthermore, I suggest that university authorities should not be involved in building or maintaining mosques, churches, or other places of worship within campuses, as doing so is discriminatory to adherents of other faiths and to secular citizens, and risks creating an environment of preferential treatment contrary to constitutional principles. Pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended):
“A citizen of Nigeria of a particular religion, ethnic group, or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person, be subjected to any disability or deprivation of any kind.”
Institutions should facilitate regulated spaces for all students and staff, rather than favoring any particular religion, ensuring that freedom of conscience and equality are respected on campus.
I have engaged extensively with this subject in my LLM dissertation, entitled “Examination of the Legal Frameworks of Religious Practices in Nigeria,” under the supervision of the erudite constitutional scholar Prof. Suleiman Ismaila Nchi, whose comprehensive work, Religion and Politics in Nigeria: The Constitutional Issues, formed a key part of my literature review.
Both my dissertation and Prof. Nchi’s scholarship affirm the legal and normative imperative that state or institutional resources must not privilege any religion, so as to uphold secularism, equality, and freedom of conscience in educational institutions.
This principle, anchored in both Sections 10, 38, and 42 of the Constitution, underscores that freedom of conscience, equality, and merit-based governance are essential not only for societal justice, but for the intellectual and moral health of our universities, which must lead by example for the Nigerian society at large.
My concern, therefore, is not theological loyalty but human dignity, intellectual honesty, and constitutional order.
I have consistently maintained that conversations of this nature—particularly those touching on political Islam, terrorism, and communal violence—ought to be engaged by open-minded Muslim intellectuals, especially within academic spaces, with evidence, facts, and reasoned counter-arguments, rather than with reflexive denials or defensive silences. Scholarship demands more than denial; it requires courage to interrogate uncomfortable truths.
At HURRAFORUM, we are deliberately building a community of intellectually mobile comrades—drawn from all walks of life—irrespective of religion, ethnicity, or political persuasion. In furtherance of this vision, we shall soon be launching a weekly podcast where all perspectives will be robustly and respectfully represented, firmly anchored in Africa’s human-rights and liberation tradition.
Our aspiration is not polemics, but healing. We want Nigeria to work, and more importantly, to lead Africa in confronting and repairing the deep fault lines of religion, ethnicity, and language—fault lines largely engineered and hardened by colonial structures, but irresponsibly sustained by post-colonial elites.
Your work, Prof., situates the “war on terror” in Nigeria within its proper historical, structural, and ideological contexts, and importantly distinguishes between Islam as a faith and political Islam as a mobilizing ideology for conquest and domination. This distinction is not Islamophobic; it is intellectually honest and historically grounded. To collapse every critique of political Islam into an attack on Islam itself is to shut down scholarship and weaponize victimhood.
Equally important is your insistence that while Nigeria is generally afflicted by insecurity, not all violence is ideologically identical. Ethnic militias driven by grievances of marginalization, equity, and survival are analytically distinct from radicalized Islamist movements whose ideological goal is territorial conquest and the imposition of a theocratic order. This distinction is critical, and refusal to acknowledge it only prolongs denial and impunity.
I am particularly struck by your emphasis on state complicity—direct or indirect, through silence, selective enforcement, or narrative manipulation. Where the state fails to name terror for what it is, victims are doubly violated: first by violence, and second by denial. No society heals by pretending that bloodshed is merely “general insecurity” when patterns, ideology, and targets suggest otherwise.
Let me be clear: Islam, like Christianity, is capable of peaceful coexistence, and many Muslim communities have themselves been victims of terror. But acknowledging this truth must not prevent us from confronting the reality that radical political Islam has, in Nigeria, produced armed movements with explicit ambitions of conquest, religious homogenization, and state capture—a reality neither erased by propaganda nor neutralized by silence.
Prof., your intervention is therefore not only academic; it is moral. It challenges us to resist intellectual cowardice, to defend freedom of conscience, and to insist that human rights are not negotiable—whether violated in the name of God, ethnicity, or state power.
Be assured that spaces such as HURRAFORUM will continue to amplify reasoned voices like yours, not to inflame divisions, but to insist that truth remains the foundation of justice, and justice the only path to lasting peace.
With deep respect.
Comrade Umez
Leave a Comment