Table of Contents
- Rejection of Claims
- Historical Accuracy
- Definition of the Middle Belt
- Pre-Colonial Political Structures
- Impact of Colonialism
- Recognition of the Middle Belt
- United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC)
- Contemporary Politics
- Conclusion
The Middle Belt Forum (MBF) has dismissed allegations that it is a recent political creation intended to destabilize the North.
The President of the forum, Dr. Pogu Bitrus, characterized these claims as historically incorrect and aimed at undermining the increasing political awareness within the Middle Belt.
A statement released by the forum’s spokesman, Luka Binniyat, on Tuesday indicated that in a comprehensive response to a widely circulated article titled “The Manufactured Middle Belt: The Untold History, Foreign Backing and the Agenda to Fracture Northern Nigeria,” written under the pseudonym Safyan Umar Yahaya, Bitrus asserted that the narrative distorts both historical facts and colonial records.
Bitrus clarified that the Middle Belt encompasses indigenous ethnic nationalities of Northern Nigeria that existed independently of the Sokoto Caliphate and the Kanem-Borno Empire prior to British colonization, emphasizing that these groups now cover 14 northern states and the Federal Capital Territory.
He noted that the Middle Belt consists of indigenous peoples who were neither conquered nor governed by the Islamic caliphates of Sokoto and Borno before colonial rule, emphasizing that this viewpoint is supported by historical research rather than mere political sentiment.
He stated: “Pre-colonial polities such as the Kwararafa Confederacy and the Jukun states; the Igala Kingdom, Borgu Kingdom, the Nupe Kingdom, Zuru (Lelna) Kingdom in present-day Southern Kebbi, as well as Tiv, Idoma, Gbagyi, Birom, Angas, and Eggon societies, among others, had distinct political systems and resisted slave raids and forced Islamization.”
He argued that British colonial conquest further influenced Middle Belt political consciousness, noting that colonial administrators recorded prolonged resistance from Middle Belt communities to colonialism, in contrast to the relatively swift subjugation of emirate enclaves.
Due to this resistance, Bitrus explained that the British enforced “indirect rule” by coercion, subjugating Middle Belt groups to emirate authorities that the majority of Middle Belt peoples had opposed. He added that this forced arrangement, rather than any foreign conspiracy, established the groundwork for subsequent agitation.
He also dismissed claims that the Middle Belt was unrecognized before the 1940s, labeling reliance on colonial political maps as “intellectually indefensible.”
According to him, colonial correspondence mentioned the Middle Belt as early as the first decade of the 20th century, although British authorities resisted the establishment of a Middle Belt Region to maintain the political dominance of Hausa, Fulani, and Kanuri oligarchs.
Regarding the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC), led by the late Joseph Sarwuan Tarka, Bitrus explained that the movement articulated long-standing grievances, including land dispossession, political exclusion, and cultural suppression.
He also rejected assertions of missionary or foreign influence in the formation of the UMBC, stating that Middle Belt leaders were among the most educated Nigerians of their time, who directly experienced the suppression, oppression, and exploitation of their people's labor and resources, and were well-equipped to form alliances to combat injustice.
In addressing current political matters, Bitrus asserted that the Middle Belt movement is not separatist but seeks recognition, equity, and freedom from what he described as an imposed “Arewa identity.”
He further dismissed attempts to depict the Middle Belt as a religious initiative, noting that the region is religiously diverse, with Muslims, Christians, and practitioners of traditional religions represented within the MBF leadership.
He argued that the long-assumed Hausa-Fulani political bloc is increasingly fracturing, citing rising dissent among Hausa intellectuals and what he described as engineered Fulani violence affecting rural Hausa communities.
Dr. Bitrus, who originates from Chibok in southern Borno State, stated that the current developments reflect not a conspiracy against the North, but what he termed the “collapse of an artificial political arrangement sustained by history and power rather than consent.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Middle Belt Forum (MBF)?
The Middle Belt Forum (MBF) is an organization that represents the interests and political consciousness of the indigenous ethnic nationalities in the Middle Belt region of Northern Nigeria.
What does the MBF say about claims of recent political invention?
The MBF has rejected claims that it is a recent political invention aimed at destabilizing the North, stating that such assertions are historically inaccurate and intended to undermine the Middle Belt’s political awareness.
What historical context does the MBF provide about the Middle Belt?
The MBF explains that the Middle Belt consists of indigenous ethnic groups that existed outside the authority of the Sokoto Caliphate and Kanem-Borno Empire prior to British colonization, emphasizing their distinct political systems and resistance to colonial rule.
Eze Chidiebere Paul
I'm dedicated to creating high-quality content that informs, inspires, and delights. If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to get in touch. Happy reading!
