In brief
At a press briefing in Abuja, Nigeria’s army spokesperson declared a ceasefire with Boko Haram and ISWAP was impossible, citing recent successes in curbing insurgent attacks. The government highlighted the killing of insurgents, arrests of suspects, and the rescue of hostages, while signalling diplomatic engagement with Sahel neighbours and ECOWAS. The statement comes amid a surge in attacks on military positions in the northeast after years of conflict.
In Abuja on Thursday, 5 November 2026, Nigeria’s armed forces announced they would not entertain a ceasefire with Islamist insurgent groups Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and vowed to continue a sustained offensive against them. Military spokesperson Major‑General Samaila Uba spoke to reporters, underscoring that recent operations have produced gains that demonstrate the government’s resolve.
Escalation in the Northeast
Nigeria has been battling Boko Haram and ISWAP in its northeastern states for over seventeen years, with occasional lull and surge phases. Recent weeks have seen a sharp uptick in attacks on military positions, a reversal of the explicit long‑term efforts that aimed to contain the insurgency. The increases occurred despite several years of security operations launched by the government, according to the briefing.
Military officials cited various statistics to justify the decision not to opt for a ceasefire. These include the killing of a number of insurgents, the arrest of suspects related to the groups, and the rescue of hostages from besieged villages. Such outcomes, the army claims, have weighed heavily on the decision to press on instead of conceding to negotiation.
"I want to make it clear that there is nothing like a ceasefire ... considering the successes recorded across our operations, it is clear that we are not relenting," said Major‑General Samaila Uba during the intelligence briefing.
Uba’s remarks were backed by an overview of recent field operations in Yobe, Borno and Adamawa, where insurgent activity has historically been fiercest. These areas have seen a complex interplay of military recapture, civilian displacement, and sporadic government–insurgent negotiations in the past. The current statement signals a shift back to a hard‑line military strategy after years of incremental gains and intermittent negotiations.
Government Strategy and Regional Diplomacy
In addition to a public stance on military operations, the briefing included remarks about Nigeria’s collaborative efforts with Sahelian neighbours. The army indicated that it was engaging in talks with neighboring states that have left the West African Economic and Monetary Community (ECOWAS), seeking strategic security and diplomatic cooperation. Reuters reported that these discussions aim to create a coordinated regional response against spill‑over of insurgent forces across borders.
Nigeria’s leadership is also working to strengthen ties within ECOWAS, despite those countries’ varied positions on the insurgency. Reports by the Reuters correspondent, Camillus Eboh, detail the logistical and intelligence sharing that has been key to the recent tactical successes mentioned by the military. The government’s focus on cross‑border partnerships underscores the belief that a purely domestic approach is insufficient against an insurgency that operates with fluid movement across the Nigeria–Benin, Niger, and Cameroon borders.
At the time of the briefing, there were no concessions toward a negotiated peace table with the Islamist groups. The army’s position is decisively militaristic, with an emphasis on ongoing operations that aim to crush the insurgent capacity in the region. The lack of a ceasefire also suggests that local communities and displaced populations may continue to face insecurity, as the insurgent groups have historically maintained strongholds in remote border villages.
While the statement came as an official government move, it also reflects internal debates within Nigeria’s security sector. Some analysts point to the necessity of sustained military pressure to outpace the insurgent group's ability to re‑establish control. Others argue that a strategic shift towards dialogue might reduce human cost, though that view does not appear to have influenced the military’s current stance.
The statement from Major‑General Uba mirrors the broader policy narrative that Nigeria’s government seeks to prevent the Islamist insurgent groups from achieving any political leverage. By refusing a ceasefire and committing to continued operations, the army signals an intent to maintain momentum in a conflict where the insurgent groups have a decade‑long history of resilience.
The restraint shown in refusing a ceasefire while coordinating with Sahel economies marks a dual approach: initiate stronger military action while preserving diplomatic momentum to curb cross‑border insurgent movements. This combination aims to increase the pressure on insurgent groups and potentially reduce successful infiltration and mass displacement behind the frontlines.
The broader region has watched this development closely, as it underscores Nigeria’s role as a regional security pivot against Islamist militancy. Future comments from Nigerian officials will be crucial in determining whether the intensified offensive will result in a measurable decline in insurgent activity, or whether a new strategy will emerge that addresses the underlying causes of recurring attacks.
Strength and resilience remain at the core of the government’s message, as the army has—at least publicly—defended its choices while asserting it will keep up the offensive to protect its citizens, territory and interests in the face of ongoing insurgent threats.
