By Achadu Gabriel, Kaduna
The President of the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), Dr. Pogu Bitrus, has dismissed claims that the Middle Belt is a recent political invention designed to destabilise Northern Nigeria, describing such narratives as historically inaccurate and misleading.Dr. Bitrus made the clarification in response to a widely circulated article titled *“The Manufactured Middle Belt: The Untold History, Foreign Backing and the Agenda to Fracture Northern Nigeria,”* authored under the pseudonym Safyan Umar Yahaya. He said the article misrepresents historical facts and ignores extensive colonial and pre-colonial records.
According to the MBF president, the Middle Belt identity predates modern Nigerian politics and refers to indigenous ethnic nationalities in Northern Nigeria that existed independently of the Sokoto Caliphate and the Kanem-Borno Empire before British colonisation.“The Middle Belt consists of autochthonous peoples who were never conquered or ruled by the Sokoto or Borno Islamic caliphates before colonial rule,” Bitrus stated. He added that these groups today span 14 northern states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Dr. Bitrus cited several pre-colonial societies, including the Kwararafa Confederacy, Jukun states, Igala Kingdom, Borgu Kingdom, Nupe Kingdom, Zuru (Lelna) Kingdom in present-day southern Kebbi, as well as Tiv, Idoma, Gbagyi, Birom, Angas and Eggon communities. He said these societies had distinct political systems and actively resisted slave raids and forced Islamisation.
He argued that British colonial conquest further shaped Middle Belt political consciousness, noting that colonial records documented prolonged resistance by Middle Belt communities compared to the relatively swift subjugation of emirate systems.“Because of this resistance, the British imposed Indirect Rule by force, subordinating Middle Belt communities to emirate authorities that most of them had resisted,” Bitrus said. He noted that this colonial arrangement, rather than any foreign conspiracy, laid the foundation for later political agitation.
The MBF president dismissed claims that the Middle Belt lacked recognition before the 1940s, describing reliance solely on colonial political maps as “intellectually indefensible.” He explained that British correspondence referenced the Middle Belt as early as the first decade of the 20th century, although colonial authorities resisted formalising a Middle Belt Region to preserve existing power structures.
On the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC), led by the late Joseph Sarwuan Tarka, Bitrus said the movement emerged from long-standing grievances, including land dispossession, political exclusion and cultural suppression. He rejected allegations of missionary or foreign manipulation, noting that Middle Belt leaders of the era were among the most educated Nigerians and were capable of organising politically to address injustices affecting their people.
Addressing contemporary politics, Dr. Bitrus stressed that the Middle Belt movement is not separatist, but seeks recognition, equity and freedom from what he described as an imposed “Arewa identity.”He also dismissed claims that the Middle Belt is a religious project, noting that the region remains religiously plural, with Muslims, Christians and traditional worshippers represented within the leadership of the Middle Belt Forum.
Dr. Bitrus, who hails from Chibok in southern Borno State, further argued that current political tensions reflect the gradual breakdown of what he described as an artificial political arrangement sustained by power rather than popular consent. “This is not a conspiracy against the North,” he said. “It is the natural outcome of historical realities asserting themselves.”
