Non-State Actors, Deradicalization, and Sustainable Peacebuilding: Voices of Internally Displaced Persons in Northeast Nigeria

Introduction

The Boko Haram insurgency has remained one of the most devastating security challenges confronting Northeast Nigeria, resulting in widespread destruction of lives, livelihoods, and social institutions. Beyond the immediate humanitarian consequences, the conflict has resulted in one of Africa’s largest internally displaced populations, with approximately 3.9 million people displaced across the region. In response, the Nigerian government has increasingly shifted from a predominantly military strategy to approaches that incorporate deradicalization, rehabilitation, and reintegration programs aimed at promoting sustainable peace.^[1] While these initiatives acknowledge that military force alone cannot resolve violent extremism, they have largely focused on rehabilitating former insurgents with limited consultation and involvement of major stakeholders,^[2] particularly internally displaced persons (IDPs), who constitute one of the conflict’s most affected populations.^[3] Consequently, the perspectives of those expected to coexist with rehabilitated ex-combatants remain largely absent from policy design and implementation.

Additionally, Ogunnubi and Uchenn^[4] note that these programs are shaped by top-down presidential directives that prioritize non-state armed actors (NSAA) while remaining disconnected from the lived realities of victims and communities most affected by violence. Thus, this article rethinks the deradicalization process by centering the voices of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in north-east Nigeria. It examines how IDPs discursively construct their experiences of displacement, trauma, and resilience through stance-taking and appraisal, and how these narratives articulate meanings that are often absent from deradicalization discourses and actions. Similarly, existing scholarship on IDPs in Nigeria has concentrated predominantly on their humanitarian conditions, including displacement, poverty, insecurity, and inadequate access to basic services.^[5]

Theoretical Framework

The article is based on  a transdisciplinary approach advocated by Galtung,^[6] to draw analytical categories from both security studies and linguistics. According to Galtung, as long as peace studies seek to understand violence and its negation through conflict transformation (“negative peace”) and peacebuilding through cooperation and harmony (“positive peace”), “peace studies must draw from many scientific disciplines.”^[7] Consequently, this study draws on two theoretical perspectives: Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) from security studies, developed by Buzan and Wæver,^[8] and Appraisal Theory, a linguistic framework developed by Martin and White,^[9] to provide an in-depth perspective on how internally displaced persons discursively construct deradicalization and sustainable peacebuilding.

Reimagining Peace from Below

One of the most significant findings emerging from the interviews conducted for this study is that internally displaced persons do not reject the principles of deradicalization or community reintegration. Instead, they articulate a conditional understanding of reintegration that is fundamentally different from dominant state-centered approaches. Rather than viewing peace as the simple return of former insurgents or the military defeat of Boko Haram, respondents consistently argue that sustainable reintegration depends upon restoring security, rebuilding livelihoods, strengthening education, ensuring community participation, and addressing the structural conditions that produced displacement in the first place. Their narratives therefore challenge linear understandings of post-conflict recovery by presenting peacebuilding as a gradual social process rather than a discrete government program.

Across the interviews, respondents repeatedly expressed a strong desire to return to their ancestral communities. However, this desire to return home was always accompanied by conditions that reflected concerns about continued insecurity and uncertainty. One respondent explained:

“We want to return, but whenever we go back, they abduct our young girls, children, and husbands. That is why we cannot return, even though they say houses have been built for us.”

Similarly, another participant remarked:

“If they give us capital and food and ask us to return when peace is restored, we will return.”

Elsewhere, another respondent observed:

“We were told to return to our village, but after eleven days we had to flee again because the attacks started once more.”

Rather than rejecting resettlement outright, these narratives demonstrate that respondents evaluate return as being dependent upon credible guarantees of safety. Within Martin and White’s Appraisal framework,^[10] these conditional constructions represent an important form of engagement, as respondents avoid categorical acceptance or rejection. Instead, they repeatedly employ conditional expressions such as “if peace is restored,” “if security improves,” and “if we receive support,” thereby recognizing multiple alternative futures while clearly identifying the conditions under which reintegration becomes meaningful.

This pattern of evaluation reflects a sophisticated understanding of post-conflict recovery. Participants acknowledge government reconstruction efforts but question whether physical rebuilding alone is sufficient to sustain peace. For many respondents, reconstructed houses have little meaning if insecurity continues to threaten everyday life. Consequently, security is evaluated not as the existence of buildings or infrastructure but as confidence that families can live, farm, and educate their children without fear of renewed violence.

Appraisal Theory helps illuminate this distinction. Through Appreciation, respondents positively evaluate rebuilt homes, markets, and community infrastructure. However, these positive evaluations are consistently moderated by Graduation and Engagement, which emphasize that physical reconstruction alone cannot compensate for continuing fear and uncertainty. In effect, respondents distinguish between rebuilding structures and rebuilding lives.

One respondent captured this distinction powerfully:

“Even if we return, our village is no longer the same. You cannot recognise it except for the neem trees.”

This statement illustrates how displacement is understood not merely as physical movement but as the transformation of place itself. The village is evaluated as socially altered, emotionally unfamiliar, and symbolically disconnected from its former identity. Through negative Appreciation, respondents suggest that successful reintegration requires restoring both physical infrastructure and the social relationships that once gave meaning to community life.

A second important pattern concerns respondents’ insistence that peacebuilding must involve affected communities rather than being imposed solely through government programmes. Throughout the interviews, participants consistently argued that rebuilding should be undertaken collaboratively by residents, community leaders, government agencies, and humanitarian organizations.

One respondent explained:

“The rebuilding of a community is not the responsibility of government alone. The people themselves can contribute, and those in positions of authority can also help.”

The participant further argued that involving local people in development projects would encourage them to protect these initiatives and reduce opportunities for insurgent influence.

This narrative represents a positive judgement of civic responsibility and collective action. Rather than positioning themselves as passive recipients of reconstruction, respondents construct themselves as active participants whose local knowledge is essential for successful peacebuilding. Their discourse therefore challenges hierarchical approaches to deradicalization that treat communities primarily as beneficiaries rather than partners.

This finding resonates strongly with contemporary peacebuilding scholarship, which argues that locally led initiatives often produce more durable outcomes than externally designed and imposed interventions.^[11] However, the interview data extend this scholarship by demonstrating how displaced persons themselves articulate these principles through everyday language. Community participation emerges not as an abstract theoretical ideal but as a practical necessity grounded in lived experience.

Another notable feature of the interviews is respondents’ repeated emphasis on restoring social cohesion. Participants consistently argue that rebuilding communities requires strengthening relationships between neighbors, families, and local institutions. One respondent reflected:

“If I were asked what I would change first, I would teach people the importance of unity, the importance of education and the importance of prayer.”

Another similarly explained:

“Wherever there is something to do, that place becomes your home.”

These statements reveal that respondents conceptualize peace as fundamentally relational. Community is not defined simply by geographical location but by shared economic activities, mutual trust, and collective responsibility. Through positive Judgement, participants evaluate unity, cooperation, and solidarity as desirable social qualities that strengthen resilience against future conflict.

Particularly significant are respondents’ reflections on the rehabilitation of former Boko Haram members. Public debates in Nigeria frequently portray internally displaced persons as uniformly opposed to reintegration programmes. However, the interview data present a more nuanced picture. One respondent observed:

“Even Boko Haram members are now undergoing rehabilitation. Many of them did not join willingly. When they regain their senses, they repent.”

This statement does not celebrate former insurgents or deny the suffering they caused. Instead, it reflects an acknowledgement that some combatants were themselves products of coercion, manipulation, or structural disadvantage. Through Engagement, the respondent recognizes alternative perspectives without abandoning moral condemnation of violence. The linguistic choice “many of them did not join willingly” introduces complexity into public narratives that often portray all former insurgents as equally culpable.

Importantly, however, respondents do not advocate unconditional forgiveness or unrestricted reintegration. Their acceptance remains contingent upon demonstrable change, accountability, and the restoration of community security. Throughout the interviews, expressions of reconciliation are consistently accompanied by conditions related to justice, safety, and livelihood restoration. Consequently, respondents construct reintegration as a negotiated social process rather than an automatic administrative decision.

Regional Security Complex Theory provides a valuable framework for interpreting these findings. Buzan and Wæver^[12] (2003) argue that regional stability depends not only upon eliminating military threats but also upon rebuilding societal relationships that have been disrupted by conflict. The interview data strongly support this proposition. Respondents repeatedly demonstrate that insecurity continues even after armed attacks decline because mistrust, displacement, economic collapse, and social fragmentation remain unresolved. Reintegration therefore becomes a societal security issue requiring the reconstruction of relationships between citizens, communities, and institutions.Importantly, however, respondents do not advocate unconditional forgiveness or unrestricted reintegration. Their acceptance remains contingent upon demonstrable change, accountability, and the restoration of community security.

Furthermore, respondents’ narratives reveal that peacebuilding is understood as extending beyond former combatants. Current deradicalization programmes often focus primarily on the rehabilitation of ex-insurgents, yet participants consistently redirect attention towards the recovery of victims themselves. Their evaluations suggest that sustainable peace cannot be achieved by rehabilitating perpetrators while neglecting the long-term needs of displaced communities. Instead, respondents advocate a more balanced approach that simultaneously addresses rehabilitation, victim recovery, economic reconstruction, and community reconciliation.

Another important dimension of this analysis concerns respondents’ rejection of externally imposed solutions. Rather than requesting permanent humanitarian assistance, participants consistently advocate interventions that strengthen local capacity. Farming, business development, education, and community participation are repeatedly presented as more sustainable foundations for peace than prolonged dependency on relief assistance. These evaluations demonstrate that respondents understand resilience as emerging from restored agency rather than continuous external support.

Conclusion

From the analysis, the central argument emerging from this study is that sustainable peace cannot be achieved solely through the rehabilitation and reintegration of former combatants while the grievances, losses, and material and social vulnerabilities of conflict-affected communities remain inadequately addressed. For the IDPs interviewed in this study, peace is not merely the absence of violence or the successful reintegration of former insurgents; it is also a question of justice, recognition, participation, livelihoods, and the restoration of community cohesion. Their narratives therefore reposition conflict survivors from the margins of peacebuilding discourse to the center of its conceptualization and practice. This shift is particularly important because policies designed without meaningful consultation with affected communities risk reproducing the very exclusions that undermine their legitimacy and long-term effectiveness.

Thus, this article advocates for a community-centred understanding of sustainable peacebuilding in which the agency of conflict survivors is recognized as indispensable to the design and implementation of post-conflict interventions. In the context of Northeast Nigeria, this requires moving beyond the assumption that peace can be delivered principally through state-designed programs based on approaches that  prioritize the knowledge, concerns, and aspirations of those who have experienced the conflict.

Endnotes

1. Del Castillo, G. (2016). “Economic Reconstruction and Reforms in Post-Conflict Countries.” In Langer, A., & Brown, G.K. (Eds.), Building Sustainable Peace: Timing and Sequencing of Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Peacebuilding, Pp.51-71. Oxford University Press.
2. Sambo, Usman, and Babayo Sule. 2025. Deradicalization and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding in Northeast Nigeria: Counteracting Boko Haram’s Extremism. Routledge.
3. Ogunnubi, Olusola, and Uchenna A. Aja. 2024. “The De-radicalization, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration Initiative within Nigeria’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy: Contextualizing Operation Safe Corridor.” African Identities 22, no. 3: 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2023.2245678.
4. Ogunnubi, Olusola, and Uchenna A. Aja. 2024. “The De-radicalization, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration Initiative within Nigeria’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy: Contextualizing Operation Safe Corridor.” African Identities 22, no. 3: 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2023.2245678.
5. Alobo, Eni, and Synda Obaji. 2016. “Internal Displacement in Nigeria and the Case for Human Rights Protection of Displaced Persons.” Journal of Law, Policy, and Globalization 51: 26–33; Aondover, Eric Msughter, Abdulrahman Uba Daushe, Omotola Ogunbola, and Perpetua Ogechi Aondover. 2025. “Media Coverage of Internally Displaced Persons in Two Selected Newspapers in Nigeria.” Journal of Migration and Health 11: 100301; Gwadabe, N. I. M., M. A. Salleh, A. A. Ahmad, and S. Jamil. 2018. “Forced Displacement and the Plight of Internally Displaced Persons in Northeast Nigeria.” Humanities and Social Science Research 1 (1): 46.
6. Galtung, Johan. 2010. “Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution: The Need for Transdisciplinarity.” Transcultural Psychiatry 47 (1): 20–32.
7. Galtung, Johan. 2010. “Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution: The Need for Transdisciplinarity.” Transcultural Psychiatry 47 (1): 20–32.
8. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Martin, James Robert, and Peter Robert Rupert White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Martin, James Robert, and Peter Robert Rupert White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Mac Ginty, Roger. 2015. “Where Is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding.” Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 840–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1045482; Lederach, John Paul. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
12. Ibid.