The dusty courtyard of Tsafe Local Government Area in Zamfara embodied a different kind of energy as farmers queued up with quiet anticipation. Before them stood soldiers not with rifles but with bags of fertiliser, representing hope.
The 1 Brigade of the Nigerian Army, Gusau, had chosen a different battlefield: the farmlands. Brigadier General Mustapha Jimoh, represented by Lt. Col. Isah Galadima, explained that this initiative was part of the army’s non-kinetic strategy to rebuild peace in a region often scarred by violence.
For 100 farmers from villages such as Gidan-Giye, Kucheri, Magazu, Bilbis and Fegin-baza, the gesture offered a chance to return to their fields with assurance.
This initiative comes at a time when fertiliser prices have skyrocketed beyond the reach of smallholder farmers, many of whom already battle displacement and insecurity.
A sustainable route to peace?
Yet beyond the ceremonial distribution, the initiative highlights a broader question: can non-kinetic strategies like agricultural support provide a long-term pathway to peace in conflict-torn areas?
Across Nigeria and beyond, examples offer a clue. Civil-military cooperation has been deployed in other troubled regions to bridge distrust between communities and armed forces. Medical outreaches, school renovation projects, and livelihood support schemes have been used in states like Borno and Yobe to encourage displaced families to return home.
These efforts serve as confidence-building measures, showing citizens that soldiers are not only protectors in combat but partners in survival.
In the context of Zamfara, where mistrust between locals and security forces sometimes runs deep, initiatives like fertiliser distribution can foster dialogue and shared responsibility for peace.
Moreover, such agricultural support tackles one of the root causes of insecurity, which is economic vulnerability.
Insecurity in Zamfara
Analysts have long argued that banditry and rural violence in Zamfara are fuelled partly by competition over resources and the desperation of unemployed youth.
By boosting food production and offering farmers a chance to rebuild their livelihoods, interventions like this reduce the pool of individuals susceptible to recruitment by armed groups.
In other parts of Africa, similar strategies have worked. In northern Uganda, for instance, post-conflict recovery programmes combined agricultural inputs with training, giving communities not just relief but resilience. Zamfara’s story can follow the same trajectory if such programmes are scaled.
There are also lessons from collaborations with development partners. In Plateau and Kaduna states, non-governmental organisations have successfully linked peacebuilding with livelihood projects, introducing climate-smart farming, training women in agribusiness, and creating farmer-herder dialogue forums.
These efforts show that when security agencies, traditional leaders, and local councils align their strategies, peace initiatives gain legitimacy and endurance. The Vice Chairman of Tsafe LGA, Sani Abdullahi, recognised this, promising to monitor the fertiliser’s usage to ensure accountability.
Such oversight mechanisms are vital, as they prevent the diversion of resources and build trust that interventions are truly for the people.
By shifting the narrative from conflict to cultivation, as seen in Zamfara, the Nigerian Army is showing that peace can be planted, watered and harvested like crops in the field.
If such non-kinetic approaches are consistently scaled up and supported by government, traditional institutions, and development partners, they could provide a durable pathway out of Zamfara’s cycle of fear. For the farmers who now return to their fields with renewed purpose, the message is clear that when livelihoods are protected, peace has a fighting chance.
Summary not available at this time.
