Rights group HURIWA is accusing the Federal Government of playing favourites with armed groups.
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria on June 6, 2026, challenged President Bola Tinubu’s administration over what it called “apparent double standards” in handling non-state security actors across different regions.
–The core allegation: one rule for some, another for others–
In a statement signed by National Coordinator Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, HURIWA said FG’s approach looks inconsistent.
It noted that successive APC-led governments, including Tinubu’s, have sustained military operations against IPOB-linked vigilantes in the South-East.
The result: arrests, proscriptions, and the continued detention of IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu despite court pronouncements.
But HURIWA said other regions appear to get softer treatment.
The group cited public claims by Yoruba Nation activist Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho, that he was “approved or licensed” to run a private security network.
It also referenced past controversies over alleged state tolerance for other regional armed formations.
“If IPOB-linked vigilante formations are being dismantled and criminalised on national security grounds, the government should clearly explain the legal or constitutional basis for tolerating, accommodating, or allegedly endorsing other privately organised armed or quasi-military groups,” HURIWA argued.
–“No constitutional provision for private armies”–
The association warned that selective security approval threatens national unity.
It stressed that Nigeria’s constitution does not permit arbitrary licensing of ethnic militias or private armies anywhere in the federation.
HURIWA condemned any policy that labels some groups “terrorists” while calling others “patriots” despite similar activities outside state security structures.
It also flagged Kanu’s continued incarceration while, it claims, “other individuals accused of comparable or lesser offences appear to be treated differently.”
–Demands for Tinubu–
HURIWA called on President Tinubu to urgently clarify 4 things:
1. Whether any private security outfit has been officially licensed outside statutory security agencies
2. The legal basis for such approval, if it exists
3. Criteria used to decide which groups are accepted or criminalised
4. Status of all non-state armed/quasi-security formations nationwide
“Failure to address these concerns could deepen ethnic tensions, weaken public trust in federal institutions, and undermine the perception of the Nigerian state as an impartial authority,” the group warned.
HURIWA insisted: “All Nigerians are equal before the law and should be treated without fear or favour. Security policy should not become an instrument of political or ethnic discrimination.”
From IPOB in the East to Igboho in the West — HURIWA wants Tinubu to explain why the rulebook looks different depending on the region.
