In a searing exposé by HumAngle Media, a deeper, unsettling narrative emerges behind the long conflict with Boko Haram — one that suggests the survival of its leader, Abubakar Shekau, may not have been just a casualty of security failures, but potentially a feature of a corrupt, war-driven political economy.
Revisiting Shekau’s End: What the Records Show
According to HumAngle, Shekau died during the 2021 assault by the rival faction ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province) on his stronghold in the Sambisa Forest in northeastern Nigeria. ISWAP fighters reportedly overwhelmed his guards, surrounded his refuge in “Sabilul Huda,” then cornered him. Rather than surrendering, Shekau — so the account goes — detonated an explosive vest, killing himself and at least one senior ISWAP operative.
Multiple sources cited by HumAngle suggest that after this event, no credible audio or video from Shekau emerged. That stark silence — coupled with the inability of the security services to produce definitive evidence — ultimately lent credibility to the conclusion that he was indeed dead.
Despite this seeming finality, the years preceding 2021 were marked by repeated false alarms — official claims of his death, followed by his reappearance in propaganda, sowing confusion and uncertainty.
The Pattern: Sambisa Forest Treated as “Untouchable”
The deeper implication of HumAngle’s reporting lies not just in confirming Shekau’s death, but in how for years, the forest enclave where he hid was effectively treated as a no-go zone by official forces. Intelligence apparently knew his location — but rather than neutralise him, the forest remained a de facto safe haven.
That pattern raises uncomfortable questions: Why, after years of terror, kidnappings, and atrocities, was Shekau still alive and well within Nigerian territory? Why did successive claims of his death repeatedly unravel?
Some analysts argue that the failure was simply incompetence, tactical difficulties, or poor intelligence. But the persistence of this status quo — despite heavy military expenditures and external support for counter-terrorism — suggests more than just bureaucratic inertia.
A Warkeeping Machine: Defence Spending, Secrecy & Systemic Corruption
Here is where the narrative outlined by HumAngle intersects with broader structural failures in Nigeria’s defence apparatus. According to a comprehensive 2024 policy brief on Nigeria’s defence sector, there is a “critical risk of corruption and lack of transparency” that spans procurement, operations, and budget oversight.
Despite recurring increases in military budgets, security outcomes remain dismal — as underscored by recent data showing thousands of security incidents and fatalities across the country.
Scholarly analysis of defence economics warns that without rigorous oversight, defence spending becomes “self-sustaining” — meaning that perpetual insecurity, or at least the appearance of it, can be more profitable than peace.
Viewed in this light, the long survival of Shekau and the failure to decisively eliminate him gains a sinister logic. Shekau — the most infamous enemy of the Nigerian state — may have functioned, wittingly or unwittingly, as a “grim utility”: a living symbol of threat, used to justify massive defence budgets, opaque security contracts, and continuous counter-terrorism funding.
In that calculus, a stalemate — not a decisive victory — could be more useful.
The Anatomy of Complicity: How ISWAP’s Kill of Shekau Reflected a Security Shift
The fact that Shekau was killed not by Nigerian military forces but by ISWAP speaks volumes. HumAngle’s detail-rich reporting suggests that ISWAP’s assault, culminating in Shekau’s death, may have had foreknowledge — or at the least tacit acceptance — from elements within the wider security establishment.
That outcome allowed Nigerian security services to claim a symbolic victory — the “end” of Shekau — without having to take decisive, public responsibility for delivering it. In short: a narrative of success attained through proxy rather than direct action.
This shift also realigned the insurgency landscape: with Shekau gone, ISWAP emerged as the dominant jihadist force in the region, consolidating control across parts of the former Sambisa base and redirecting the security threat — but also resetting the justification for continued defence expenditure.
Why This Matters: The Human and Institutional Cost of a Perpetual War Economy
For ordinary Nigerians — especially those in the northeast — the cost of this prolonged insurgency has been devastating. Countless lives lost, millions displaced, communities torn apart, entire towns rendered uninhabitable. The human toll speaks to a failure not just of security, but of governance and social contract.
Institutionally, the entrenchment of opaque security spending undermines democratic accountability. As documented in defence-sector reviews, oversight remains weak — shadow budgets, special funds, “security votes,” and non-transparent procurement have created fertile ground for corruption, mismanagement, and private enrichment.
The broader strategic cost is existential: terror becomes normalised, conflict becomes perpetual, and state capacity to protect citizens becomes hollow performance — sustained not for peace, but for profit.
Reassessing the Narrative: From Enemy of the State to Instrument of the State
The standard narrative frames Shekau as the mortal enemy — a terrorist whose elimination would spell the end of Boko Haram and bring peace. HumAngle’s reporting forces a more uncomfortable, but arguably truer, reassessment: Shekau may have served a deeper, systemic function within Nigeria’s security-insecurity complex.
Seen this way, Boko Haram — or at least its leadership — was not just a security challenge, but a component of a larger political economy: one fueled by fear, perpetuated by secrecy, and maintained by vested financial interests.
The elimination of Shekau by ISWAP, rather than by the state, represents more than a tactical shift. It reflects a recalibration: from open confrontation (which would expose institutional failure) to proxy resolution — one that preserved the structure of fear while giving the state breathing room.
Yet that does not mean victory. Rather, it marks a new chapter in the same war — one in which insurgency survives, but under different leadership, and in a new form. The stalemate persists. The war economy continues.
What This Means Going Forward
1. Need for Transparency and Oversight – As documented by defence-sector analysts, the lack of civilian oversight, opaque procurement, and secretive “security votes” must be addressed. Without structural reform, Nigeria risks perpetuating cycles of violence for institutional profit rather than security.
2. Rethinking Counter-Terrorism Strategy – Military offensives alone, especially temporary incursions into forests like Sambisa, are insufficient. As a retired officer recently warned, insurgents often scatter, regroup, and return — unless permanent presence and post-conflict strategies are enforced.
3. Demystifying the War Narrative – Public discourse must shift from heroics and claims of “neutralising terror bosses” to critical assessments of outcomes, accountability, and structural causes of conflict.
4. Investing in Governance, Not Just Guns – Security cannot be achieved solely through firepower. Addressing root causes — socio-economic deprivation, institutional corruption, lack of opportunity — must complement military action.
Conclusion: The Price of a Perpetual Threat
The story of Abubakar Shekau’s long survival — and the circumstances of his death — is more than a tale of intelligence failures or battlefield luck. It is a story about how insurgency, when left unchecked by accountability and transparency, becomes woven into the fabric of a nation’s security and political economy.
When the forest that should have been flushed becomes a sanctuary, when official death claims turn into signals rather than conclusions, the conflict becomes less about justice or security — and more about sustaining the machinery of war itself.
If Nigeria is to break out of this cycle, the next frontier is not another raid on a forest. It is the courageous act of dismantling the very war economy that thrives on fear, darkness, and secrecy.
0 Comments