CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Conflict is inevitable in every human society; conflict generally exists whenever and

wherever there is the pursuit of incompatible goals, as well as scarce status and resources.

Nigeria is often referred to as a multi–ethnic and multi–religious country. The plural nature of

the country makes it susceptible to manipulation and therefore, ushers in a constant feeling of

distrust between and among the component units, as well as ethnic and religious groups that

made up the polity, sometimes leading to violent and deadly clashes between and among these

groups, thereby undermining peace and security of lives and properties of its citizens, and the

country in general.

Violent ethnic and religious conflicts are part of the most persistent issue in Nigeria. In

the history of ethnic and religious conflicts in Nigeria, Kaduna State can be described as a

conflict prone area. It has experienced quite a number of violent conflicts, mostly expressed in

ethno-religious forms. The major examples of violent ethno-religious conflicts in Kaduna State

included the Kafanchan-Kaduna crises in 1987, Zangon-Kataf riots of February and May, 1992,

Kaduna Sharia riots of 2000, Kasuwar Magani (Kaduna) 1994 (Osaghae and Suberu, 2005).

There are fifty-eight (58) ethnic groups in Kaduna State who are predominantly Muslims and

Christians. Most of these ethnic groups are situated in Southern Kaduna, and some of them cut

across local governments. For instance you can find one or more than two ethnic groups in more

than one local government area (Hayab, 2014).

16

The area known as Southern Kaduna is well–known for its recurrent violent ethnic and

religious conflicts and unrest. As discussed by Suberu (1996), “Ethnic minority tensions and

conflicts in Southern Kaduna have probably engendered far more serious violence than any other

forms of communal instability in recent Nigerian history” (p48). “The zone has occupied a

volatile position in the twentieth century history of inter-group conflicts and tensions in Northern

Nigeria, it has experienced complex conflicts, occasionally violent, and mostly assuming an

ethnic form” (Kazah-Toure, 1999: 111).

The area is composed of numerous but relatively small ethnic groups, many of which are

predominantly Christians, also known as Northern Minorities. The Southern Kaduna area is also

inhabited by Hausa and Fulani who are predominantly Muslims, and also considered non

indigenes by the other ethnic groups in the area. The relationships that often exist between the

Southern Kaduna ethnic groups, and the Hausa and the Fulani on the other hand have been

hostile, at some points leading to violent ethno–religious conflict (Kazah-Toure, 2003). Zangon-

Kataf Local Government is also known for its frequent ethnic and religious conflicts. There was

an outbreak of violent ethno-religious conflicts in 1987, the February and the May 1992 that

engulfed Zango town in Zangon-Kataf Local Government Area of Kaduna State, the 2011 inter-

communal conflict, that erupted in Kamuru town between Bajju and Ikulu over the ownership

Kamuru town, and recently, the 2011 post election violence which sparked up violent conflict in

some part of the state, and Zangon-Kataf Local Government in Particular.

Violent conflict constitutes a clog in the wheel of progress and development of an

individual and the community at large. Therefore, sustainable peace and security is fundamental

to the progress and development of every society. This is due to the fact that, incessant conflicts

in Zangon-Kataf Local Government constitute a hindrance to peace and security of the citizens

17

of the area. Despites all efforts by the government to nib in bud, the prevalence of conflict in the

LGA, through the deployment of security personnel whenever there is breakdown of conflict.

However, the subsequent setting of many judicial commissions of inquiry to investigate the

causes of conflicts proved abortive.

Traditional rulers as non state actors are being regarded as custodians of culture and

tradition of the nation. Traditional rulers are close to the people at the grassroots level, and

traditionally accepted by their people based on the customs and the traditions of their respective

domains, and also officially recognized by the government of their respective states. Traditional