PLATEAU YOUTH COALITION BACKS JOINT SECURITY OPERATIONS, CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

By Simpson Global Media News Desk

Report date: Friday, 23 October 2026

Report preparation time: 07:25 WAT (UTC+1)

Story location: Plateau State, Nigeria; press conference held in Utako, Abuja

A coalition of indigenous youth organisations in Plateau State has called on the Federal Government to sustain joint security operations in the state, while urging authorities to investigate allegations of misconduct and possible collusion involving security personnel.

The coalition made its position public during a press conference at the Nigeria Union of Journalists Secretariat in Utako, Abuja, on Wednesday, October 21, 2026. Its leaders defended the Department of State Services (DSS), the Mobile Police Force and Plateau State’s Operation Rainbow against allegations of bias, while arguing that the agencies should continue cooperating to address armed violence and protect communities.

The coalition also called for an investigation into allegations involving some military personnel and armed groups operating in Plateau. Its position followed a petition dated October 5, reportedly submitted on behalf of Plateau chapters of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN), the Gan Allah Fulani Development Association of Nigeria (GAFDAN), the Fulbe Youth Development Association of Nigeria (FUYODA) and other groups. The petition reportedly accused the DSS of discriminatory operations against Fulani communities and alleged involvement in killings, abductions and incidents involving cattle. These are allegations, not established findings. [Sources: Premium Times; Daily Post]

Speaking for the youth coalition, Dalyop Mwantiri, president of the Berom Youths Moulder-Association and coordinator of Indigenous Youth Nationalities in the Northern Zone, rejected the allegations against the DSS leadership and described calls to discontinue the joint operations as potentially harmful to security cooperation.

The coalition said its members believed the operations had helped improve responses to distress calls and led to the arrest of suspected criminal figures. It also claimed that violence and destruction affecting communities had declined since the joint operations began. Those claims have not been independently quantified in the reports reviewed. [Sources: Voice of Nigeria; Premium Times]

The competing claims have placed renewed attention on the difficult security situation in Plateau, where communities have experienced recurring attacks, killings, displacement and disputes involving land, farming, pastoralism and security operations.

The central issue is now twofold: whether coordinated security deployments can continue protecting vulnerable communities, and whether the allegations surrounding the conduct of security personnel will be investigated impartially. Both questions matter to public confidence, civilian protection and the effectiveness of efforts to restore peace.

What happened at the Abuja press conference?

The October 21 briefing was organised by indigenous youth representatives who said they wanted to respond to concerns raised in a petition and a video circulating on social media about security operations in Plateau State.

The coalition said the petition questioned the conduct of the DSS, Mobile Police Force and Operation Rainbow, while presenting the Nigerian Army as the security institution acting most effectively in the interest of peace. According to the coalition, that portrayal risked undermining cooperation among agencies working in the same security environment. [Source: Premium Times]

Mwantiri argued that joint operations should not be discontinued because of allegations that had yet to be resolved through an investigation. He urged the Federal Government to consider the broader security needs of affected communities and maintain collaboration among the agencies involved.

The coalition did not restrict its comments to defending the agencies. It also called for an investigation into alleged compromise, unprofessional conduct and possible collusion involving some military personnel and armed groups.

That aspect of its position is important because it points to the need for accountability across institutions, rather than treating any security agency as beyond scrutiny. Allegations involving security personnel should be assessed through evidence, proper investigative procedures and the opportunity for affected parties to respond.

The press conference did not itself establish whether the allegations in the petition or the coalition’s counterclaims were true. Nor did it provide a final official finding on the conduct of any named officer or agency.

The available reports primarily document the coalition’s response. They do not provide a completed independent investigation resolving the claims made by the petitioners or the counter-allegations raised at the briefing.

The petition that triggered the response

Reports on the dispute say the petition was dated October 5, 2026, and signed by Mudahid Abdullahi on behalf of Plateau-based chapters of MACBAN, GAFDAN, FUYODA and other organisations.

As reported by the youth coalition, the petition raised concerns about what the signatories described as biased or discriminatory security operations targeting Fulani communities. It reportedly attributed killings and abductions of Fulani residents, cattle rustling, the poisoning of cattle and shootings of cows to security operations involving the DSS. [Sources: The Guardian Nigeria; Daily Post]

These are serious allegations because they concern possible violations of civilian rights and the conduct of state security institutions. They also involve communities that have experienced violence and mistrust in parts of Plateau.

Such claims require careful examination. Statements about killings, abductions or the destruction of property should not be treated as proven solely because they appear in a petition. At the same time, the submission of a petition should not be treated as proof that its concerns are baseless.

A credible investigation would need to establish what occurred in each reported incident, where and when it happened, which personnel were involved, what evidence is available and whether the actions complied with applicable law and operational rules.

It would also need to distinguish between allegations about a particular officer, an individual operation and the conduct of an entire organisation. Evidence involving one incident cannot automatically be used to determine the conduct of every officer or every operation.

The reports reviewed do not include a final official determination of the petition’s allegations. They also do not provide a complete investigative record that would permit independent resolution of every claim.

The coalition’s response to accusations against the DSS

The youth coalition rejected allegations that Plateau State DSS Director Paul Damian or the agency was responsible for killings, cattle poisoning or cattle rustling.

Mwantiri said the coalition had no evidence linking Damian or the DSS to those alleged acts. He also described instances in which security personnel reportedly intercepted cattle grazing on residents’ farmland and detained them while the owners or people responsible were being identified. [Source: Premium Times]

The coalition’s account is one side of a contested matter. It does not substitute for an official investigation into the allegations made by the petitioners.

Where cattle are found grazing on cultivated farmland, authorities may need to establish who owns the animals, how they came to be on the land, whether crops were damaged and whether any unlawful conduct occurred. Establishing responsibility requires evidence relevant to the specific incident.

Likewise, any allegation that an official or security agency engaged in unlawful violence must be assessed on its own evidence. The presence of a security operation, the detention of cattle or the existence of tensions between communities does not independently prove misconduct by a named officer.

The coalition argued that the allegations should not be used to discredit all the joint operations. Its wider position was that the security agencies should continue cooperating while the accusations are investigated. [Sources: Voice of Nigeria; The Guardian Nigeria]

That position creates a practical question for the authorities: how to maintain operations needed to protect communities while ensuring that complaints about the conduct of personnel receive a credible response.

Continuing a lawful operation and investigating allegations of wrongdoing are not mutually exclusive. Proper oversight can help distinguish justified actions from misconduct and strengthen the legitimacy of security work.

Why joint security operations matter in Plateau

Plateau State has faced recurring violence affecting rural settlements and farming communities. Attacks, retaliatory incidents, displacement and disputes involving land and livestock have placed pressure on local authorities, security personnel and residents.

The security environment can involve several different responsibilities. The police are responsible for law enforcement and public safety, while the DSS has domestic intelligence and security responsibilities. The military may be deployed in support of broader security operations, and state-level arrangements such as Operation Rainbow may provide additional local capacity.

The particular role of each institution depends on the legal authority, mandate and operational arrangements governing an assignment. Their presence together does not mean they have identical powers or responsibilities.

Joint operations can bring different capabilities together, including intelligence gathering, patrols, investigation, protection of vulnerable locations and responses to reports of imminent violence. Coordination can be important where criminal groups move across local government boundaries or where an incident requires support from multiple agencies.

However, coordination needs clear command arrangements, communication channels and procedures for sharing information. Without those arrangements, agencies may duplicate work, leave gaps in coverage or respond inconsistently to reports from residents.

Joint operations also require clear safeguards for civilians. Security objectives must be pursued within applicable law, with mechanisms for receiving complaints and investigating claims of wrongdoing.

The Plateau coalition argued that the current collaboration among the DSS, Mobile Police Force and Operation Rainbow should be sustained. Its claim that these operations have reduced attacks remains an attributed assessment rather than an independently verified measure of security conditions.

To assess effectiveness, authorities would need to publish or make available credible indicators such as reported attacks, casualties, abductions, displacement, response times, arrests followed by lawful proceedings and the security of affected communities over time.

Claims about 152 affected communities

During the briefing, the coalition said it had documented at least 152 hamlets, villages and communities affected by attacks and displacement.

The figure indicates the scale of the problem as described by the group, but the reports reviewed do not provide its underlying dataset, a complete list of affected locations or an independent assessment of how the total was calculated. It should therefore be treated as the coalition’s reported figure rather than an independently verified count. [Source: Premium Times]

A proper assessment of the security situation would need to identify the locations, dates and types of incidents included in the figure. Researchers and authorities would also need to distinguish between communities that experienced direct attacks, areas affected by displacement and locations exposed to wider insecurity.

That distinction matters because each situation may require different interventions. A community that has suffered an attack may need immediate protection, investigation and support for victims. A displaced settlement may need safe conditions for return, assistance for residents and restoration of basic services. An area experiencing recurring threats may require early-warning arrangements and reliable communication with security personnel.

A list of affected communities could be useful to public authorities if it is supported by reliable records and can be updated as conditions change. It could help identify where people have been displaced, which locations need urgent protection and where relief or reconstruction activities may be required.

However, the figure alone does not establish the responsibility of any particular group for every incident. Attribution must be based on evidence specific to each event.

The coalition’s account adds to the public record of its concerns, but the underlying figure and the details of the alleged attacks need independent documentation before being treated as a verified total.

Security personnel reportedly attacked in separate incidents

The coalition also cited attacks on security personnel deployed in Plateau, saying the risks faced by officers should be considered when assessing the continuation of joint operations.

According to its account, a DSS base at Nding Sesut in the Fan district of Barkin Ladi Local Government Area was attacked on June 1, 2026. The group further alleged that attacks on Tanjol and Tarai villages in Jol community on August 23 resulted in the deaths of two DSS officers and the seizure of their weapons. These incident details were reported as claims made by the coalition and were not independently confirmed in the reporting reviewed. [Source: Premium Times]

The coalition also referred to reported killings of Mobile Police personnel in Dares and Kwi villages, in Bokkos and Riyom local government areas respectively, approximately two weeks before the press conference.

It further recalled the death of David Babale, identified by the group as an assistant superintendent of police and operations officer with Operation Rainbow. The coalition alleged that Babale was ambushed near a military checkpoint around Rakok village, outside Barkin Ladi.

The group also cited fatal injuries suffered by DSS personnel in separate ambushes at Kantoma and Alohgom in Mangu Local Government Area while responding to distress calls from communities under attack. [Source: Premium Times]

These accounts, if confirmed, would underscore the dangers faced by security personnel operating in volatile areas. They would also raise questions about operational planning, intelligence, route security and the protection of officers responding to emergency reports.

But because the details were presented by the coalition, the claims should be checked against official incident records and independent reporting. The public information reviewed does not establish a comprehensive, independently verified account of every incident listed at the briefing.

The circumstances of each attack would matter. Authorities would need to establish the location, timeline, victims, evidence collected and any suspects identified. They would also need to determine whether operational procedures were followed and what lessons could improve future responses.

A careful review would avoid using reported losses of security personnel either to dismiss allegations of misconduct or to treat every allegation against security agencies as established.

Allegations of possible collusion require an independent inquiry

One of the most consequential elements of the coalition’s statement was its call for an investigation into alleged collusion between some military personnel and armed groups operating in Plateau.

The coalition urged federal authorities to investigate allegations of unprofessional conduct, compromise and collusion. It also called for an investigation into the social media video that it said presented the Army as the only effective security institution operating in the state. [Sources: Premium Times; The Guardian Nigeria]

The call needs to be understood precisely. The coalition did not establish that collusion occurred; it said the allegations should be investigated. No conclusion about the conduct of military personnel follows simply from the fact that such a request was made.

Allegations of collusion involving security personnel are serious because public confidence depends on the belief that officers are acting under lawful authority and for the protection of civilians. If an individual officer is suspected of assisting an armed group, authorities need an evidence-based process capable of determining whether the allegation is supported.

An impartial investigation should identify the specific people, events and conduct under examination. Investigators would need to review relevant records, interview witnesses where appropriate, examine available evidence and give those implicated a fair opportunity to respond through the applicable process.

It is equally important to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations. Unsupported claims should not be presented as established fact, and the investigation should not be used to justify collective blame against an institution or a community.

The coalition’s request for an investigation is therefore a distinct part of its position. It argues that the joint security operation should continue while allegations involving individual personnel are examined.

The reports reviewed do not establish that federal authorities have opened or completed a specific inquiry into the allegations raised at the press conference. Any official announcement setting out the scope, agency responsible or outcome would be important new information.

The social media video and public confidence

The coalition also objected to a video circulating on social media that it said portrayed the DSS, Mobile Police Force and Operation Rainbow negatively while presenting the Nigerian Army as the only security institution acting in the interest of peace.

Mwantiri argued that the video and petition could damage public confidence in agencies working together and weaken intelligence sharing with communities. [Source: Premium Times]

The contents and context of the video would need to be independently examined before any conclusions could be reached about its accuracy, editing, origin or purpose. A social media post can contain genuine evidence, incomplete information, unsupported allegations or a mixture of claims that need verification.

It is important not to assume that criticism of a security agency is necessarily intended to sabotage an operation. Residents and civil society groups must be able to raise genuine concerns about official conduct. Conversely, allegations shared online should not be treated as established fact merely because they are widely circulated.

A sound approach would be to evaluate the underlying claims, establish which incidents can be verified and distinguish evidence of misconduct from commentary or interpretation. If the video contains specific allegations, authorities could identify the incidents and determine whether they warrant formal investigation.

Public confidence is strengthened when credible allegations receive transparent, lawful responses. It is not strengthened by automatically accepting every accusation or dismissing every criticism.

For Plateau, where mistrust and recurring violence have affected communities, accurate information and clear communication are especially important. Public statements should avoid inflaming tensions or assigning collective responsibility without evidence.

The need to protect civilians and restore confidence

The security situation in Plateau cannot be measured solely by the number of deployments, arrests or press statements. The ultimate objective of security operations is to protect people, reduce violence and allow communities to resume ordinary activities safely.

For residents, security means being able to travel, cultivate farmland, reach markets, attend school and access healthcare without a credible fear of attack. It also means being able to report suspected crimes and have complaints treated seriously.

Where violence has displaced residents, protection efforts may need to be accompanied by humanitarian assistance, safe conditions for return and support for livelihoods. Where disputes arise over land or livestock, effective responses may require both law enforcement and lawful mechanisms for resolving the underlying disputes.

The different agencies operating in Plateau have distinct roles, but all must work within the law and remain accountable for their conduct. Cooperation can help them respond more effectively to threats, while oversight can help ensure that operations do not produce further harm to civilians.

The coalition urged authorities to sustain joint operations and said protection of innocent lives should take precedence over personal, organisational or political interests. That position reflects the central public interest at stake, although its allegations about the motives of other parties remain unproven. [Source: Premium Times]

A sustainable security response would require reliable early-warning channels, prompt investigation of attacks, protection of vulnerable communities, professional conduct by security personnel and credible information about the results of operations.

What an independent review should establish

The competing claims point to several questions that an independent review could help answer.

First, what incidents prompted the October 5 petition, and what evidence supports the allegations that security operations were discriminatory or involved unlawful actions?

Second, what is the documented record of attacks on communities and security personnel cited by the youth coalition? Are there official reports, witness accounts, casualty records or other evidence confirming the individual incidents?

Third, what are the rules of engagement and command arrangements for the joint operations involving the DSS, Mobile Police Force, Operation Rainbow, the military and local security volunteers? Are responsibilities clear, and is there a mechanism for handling allegations against individual personnel?

Fourth, what evidence exists concerning the allegation of collusion involving some military personnel and armed groups? Who is responsible for investigating it, and what process will protect both accountability and procedural fairness?

Finally, have the operations produced measurable improvements in civilian safety? Reliable data on attacks, casualties, displacement, response times and the protection of farmland could help establish what has changed over time.

These questions should be answered on the basis of evidence, not political or ethnic affiliation. An independent assessment would also need to distinguish between incidents that have been verified, allegations that remain unresolved and conclusions supported by a formal investigation.

The reports reviewed do not supply enough information to answer all these questions. They document the petition as described by the coalition and the coalition’s response, but not a final independent determination of the underlying claims.

What happens next?

The immediate public issue is whether the Federal Government and relevant security authorities will respond to the competing concerns while maintaining protection for communities at risk.

The coalition has called for joint operations to continue and for an investigation into allegations concerning some military personnel. The organisations reportedly responsible for the original petition have raised separate allegations about discrimination and misconduct in security operations.

A credible response would need to address both the need for effective security and the responsibility to investigate complaints. Authorities could clarify the status of the petition, confirm whether an inquiry has been opened and explain how allegations of misconduct should be reported and assessed.

Security agencies could also provide information, where operationally safe and legally appropriate, on the mandate of the joint operations, the channels for civilian complaints and the general measures used to protect communities. Such information would not require the disclosure of sensitive intelligence or details that could compromise current deployments.

For communities, accessible complaint mechanisms and reliable communication may help reduce uncertainty about how incidents are handled. Local organisations can also help authorities understand community concerns, provided their reports are assessed fairly and not accepted uncritically.

Any official response should avoid assuming that every allegation is true or false before the evidence has been examined. It should also protect the right of residents to raise concerns without fear of retaliation.

The reports reviewed as of October 23 do not establish that the full dispute has been resolved or that a formal investigation has produced findings. The next substantive development would be an official clarification, an independently documented investigation or verifiable information about the operational and civilian-safety outcomes.

Conclusion: security cooperation needs accountability

The Plateau youth coalition’s intervention has drawn attention to two related challenges: sustaining security operations in communities affected by violence and ensuring that allegations against security personnel receive credible investigation.

The coalition has defended the DSS, Mobile Police Force and Operation Rainbow, arguing that their cooperation should continue. It has also called for an investigation into alleged collusion involving some military personnel and armed groups. Meanwhile, the petition that prompted the response reportedly raised allegations of discriminatory operations and misconduct affecting Fulani communities.

Neither side’s claims should be treated as proven solely on the basis of the statements reported so far. The available reporting does not establish a final independent finding resolving the allegations.

For the Federal Government, the practical responsibility is to protect vulnerable communities while ensuring that security personnel operate lawfully and that credible complaints are investigated. For the agencies involved, effective cooperation requires clear responsibilities, reliable intelligence sharing, professional conduct and accountability. For communities, confidence will depend on whether protection improves and whether concerns receive a fair hearing.

The coalition says it has documented 152 affected hamlets, villages and communities, but the figure requires independent verification before it can be treated as an established total. The reported attacks on security personnel similarly require confirmation through official records and independent evidence.

Plateau’s security challenges will not be resolved by competing statements alone. Progress will depend on reducing attacks, protecting civilians, investigating specific allegations and providing credible information about the results of security operations.

The latest development is therefore a call for continued joint operations alongside a demand for investigation, not a final determination of who is responsible for the allegations. The next official response and any independently verified findings will be essential to understanding how the dispute develops.

Reporting note: Prepared Friday, October 23, 2026, at 07:25 WAT. The press conference occurred in Abuja on October 21. Claims from the petition and from the youth coalition are attributed to the reporting sources; allegations of misconduct or collusion have not been presented here as established facts.