This is a very serious political accusation, but it is still just that for now — an accusation, not proof.
Ohanaeze Ndigbo is essentially making two explosive claims:
- that the drop in reported “Fulani herdsmen” attacks in the South-East after Muhammadu Buhari left office is suspicious, and
- that this suggests those violent groups may have operated with some form of state backing under his administration.
That is a huge allegation, and if you are writing on it, you need to handle it carefully and responsibly.
The core of Ohanaeze’s argument
According to the statement credited to factional leaders Mazi Okechukwu Isiguzoro and Chief Thompson Ohia, the group says the sudden reduction in attacks after Buhari’s exit — and especially after his death in 2025 — cannot be ignored.
They argue that for years, communities across the South-East lived under fear, with repeated reports of:
- attacks on villages,
- destruction of farmlands,
- occupation of forests,
- displacement of residents,
- and killings blamed on suspected armed herders.
From their perspective, the timing of the decline raises a troubling question:
Why did the violence reduce so sharply if nothing structurally changed before?
That is the political angle they are pushing.
But here is the important reality
That claim is not independently proven by the statement itself.
A fall in attacks — if accurate — does not automatically prove that the Buhari government created, funded, or directed those violent actors.
There could be multiple explanations, such as:
- improved regional security coordination,
- more local vigilance,
- changing criminal routes,
- military or intelligence disruption,
- shifting conflict patterns,
- or underreporting in some areas.
So while the accusation may reflect a deeply held grievance in the region, it should not be presented as established fact without hard evidence.
That distinction matters a lot.
Why the statement is politically significant
Even without proof, the statement tells you something important about trust and memory in the South-East.
A lot of people in the region still associate Buhari’s years in power with:
- insecurity,
- marginalisation,
- heavy-handed federal responses,
- and unresolved tensions around identity and belonging.
So when Ohanaeze links that era to violent attacks, it is not just making a security claim — it is expressing a long-standing political wound.
That is why the language in the statement is so strong, especially where it references a so-called “Fulanization Agenda.”
Again, that is a political interpretation, not a verified legal or intelligence conclusion.
Tinubu gets praised in the same breath
Interestingly, the statement also does something very strategic: it contrasts Buhari’s era with Bola Tinubu’s current administration, which Ohanaeze says has helped improve security and infrastructure in the South-East.
That part is not accidental.
By praising Tinubu, the group is sending a message that federal trust can be rebuilt — but only if the region feels seen, protected, and included.
It is also a way of saying:
“We remember how we were treated before, and we are watching whether things are different now.”
Ohanaeze’s statement is politically powerful, emotionally loaded, and likely to spark debate. But if you are reporting or analysing it, the safest and strongest framing is this:
Ohanaeze is alleging a suspicious link between Buhari’s era and years of violent attacks in the South-East, based on what it describes as a dramatic post-2025 decline — but it has not provided conclusive public evidence proving state sponsorship.
That is the honest middle ground.