By Ephraim Emah
Nigeria’s mining sector is often described in binary terms: to some, it is a sleeping economic giant, which is key to diversifying a mono-product economy, and to others, it fuels persistent insecurity, serving as a “resource curse” that enables banditry and communal violence due to overlapping claims for resource control. These narratives often lead to a predictable policy response: when the security situation worsens, the government “pauses” activities in the sector by issuing bans and mining suspensions.
However, recent research conducted by the Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria (SPRiNG) programme to understand the nexus between mining and violence in North-Central and North-West Nigeria, which suggests that a”security-first” approach to managing mining may be achieving the opposite of its intent. The study, which was conducted in partnership with Levine Sources, Centre for and Conflict Management and Peace of University of Jos, and Centre for Peace and Security Studies of Benue State University, revealed that mining is not a problem to be solved through a securitised approach or the exclusion of specific groups; however, it is a complex social and economic reality that, if governed with evidence, can become a cornerstone of national stability.
The Paradox of Implementing a Mining Ban
The common instinct to ban mining in conflict-affected communities is based on the assumption that stopping the activity will starve the conflict of its oxygen. The research’s findings indicate otherwise, revealing that the impact of mining is far more nuanced. Our study found that state-imposed bans on mining activities often create a governance vacuum that is quickly filled by criminal elements, exploiting it to engage in clandestine economies, with which they raise resources to sustain rural violence and criminality.
In many instances, on the other hand, suspending legal activity did not stop mining; instead, it simply pushed it further into the shadows. Without official oversight, miners become more vulnerable to illegal taxation by bandits, and local disputes that were once settled by traditional leaders or mining associations have escalated into full-scale violence. In fact, evidence suggests that violent clashes often increase during periods of these pronounced suspensions.
Communal stability often returns once the mining economy is allowed to function openly again. Therefore, to build peacewithin communities whose relationships are characterised by complex conflicts influenced by mining, our response shouldmove from a strategy of ‘banning’ mining activities to one that‘stirs’ affected stakeholders to develop constructive relationships – built around the principles of reciprocity and mutuality – and engage in responsible mining while relevant regulatory institutions review and enforce mining frameworks that improve sectoral governance and protect local communities.
The Human Face: Several Livelihoods at Stake
To understand mining in Nigeria, one must look past the heavy machinery of multinational corporations. According to the mining and violence research, approximately 90% of the sector is driven by Artisanal and Small-scale Mining (ASM). This is a sector that supports an estimated 2 million livelihoods directly and millions more indirectly.
These beneficiaries are not just “illegal miners”; they are household heads, youth, and entrepreneurs. Additionally, beyond the assumption that the beneficiaries of the sector are mostly men, our research highlights the often-overlooked role of women in this ecosystem. Women are not merely bystanders; they are essential actors, working as ore washers, processors, providers of food and services at mine sites, and owners of mining sites. Despite these contributions, they are the most vulnerable to the ‘shadow governance’ that emerges when the state retreats. Moreover, there is a high tendency to criminalise the sector when sweeping bans are issued, which in turn effectively criminalises the genuine primary livelihoods of some of our most marginalised citizens who rely on this sector for survival. Disrupting legitimate livelihoods through these bans could plausibly drive these marginalised groups into informal and illicit economies, which could further complicate insecurity.
A Tale of Three States: Regional Lessons
The research report illustrates that the nexus between mining and violence manifests differently in every state covered in the research, thereby requiring localised solutions to respond.
• In Plateau State, the study revealed a history of resilience, where mining sites have occasionally acted as zones of cooperation among several actors (and with communities). For instance, in Barkin Ladi, local arrangements for managing and securing mining sites’access have strengthened collaboration, bringing together groups that were otherwise divided by [inter]communal conflicts.
• In Kaduna State, the study revealed a trend of ‘coerced stability’. Here, organised criminal groups, who engage in mining activities to sustain their armed organisations, have shifted from raiding mining communities to taxing them, establishing a brutal form of order to ensure their own illicit gold mining and economic flows continue.
• In Benue State, the study revealed there is a “lithium rush”. As a new frontier for high-value minerals, the rapid influx of people and capital for lithium mining is creating friction over land rights and unmet community expectations. Without proactive governance, these “frontier” dynamics could become the next flashpoint for violence.
The Governance Friction
A major driver of fragility in the mining sector is the persistent tension between the sectoral governance frameworks of Federal and State authorities. While the Federal Government holds the exclusive right to issue mining licenses in the Constitution, the Land Use Act grants the State Government control over the land itself. This legal grey zone creates confusion that local elites and informal gatekeepers exploit in allocating and sustaining mining sites within communities where mineral deposits exist.
The study indicates that when a community sees mineral wealth leaving their soil while they suffer from environmental degradation and a lack of basic services, they feel a betrayal of the social contract entered between them and local authorities to serve and improve their welfare. In essence, the friction in existing governance frameworks in the sector is a recipe for continuous violence. Peace thrives where there is clarity; contrarily, these gaps energise conflict.
A Strategic Investment in Peace as the Path Forward
Mining reform must be reframed as a strategic peacebuilding tool that requires three critical shifts:
1. Moving Away from Criminalisation to Professionalisation: Instead of viewing ASM as a threat, Federal and State Governments should review sectoral regulatory frameworks to provide formal pathways for miners to organise themselves into cooperatives. Implementing this reform will improve their access to finance and better equipment, reducing their dependence on predatory middlemen and financiers who often have links to insecurity.
2. Implement Rights-Based, Community-Centred Security: Security at mine sites should not rely solely on the formal security services, such as the police, military, and other paramilitary forces. Instead, it is imperative to develop a “bottom-up” security architecture that involves traditional leaders, mining associations, and youth and women’s groups in monitoring and reporting illicit mining activities that have the potential to exacerbate insecurity.
3. Promote Harmonised Sectoral Governance: While it is critical to review the regulatory frameworks for the mining sector, it is also essential to develop a co-designed roadmap that aligns Federal licensing with State and Local land management processes. In addition to harmonising these processes, the revenue generated from mining should be visible in local communities through community development projects that address the immediate needs of the people living on the land where minerals are mined.
Mining will continue in Nigeria because the demand for minerals, such as gold, lithium, tin, and lead, is high. Hence, there are two choices before us: leave this sector to the shadows, allowing it to fuel crime and exclusion or bringing it into the light by reviewing and implementing mechanisms that are inclusive, transparent, and beneficial to all groups. By choosing the latter, we are not only fixing an industry, but we are also building a more resilient, peaceful, and economically viable Nigeria.
Ephraim Emah is the Research and Evidence Lead for the FCDO-funded SPRiNG Programme. Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria (SPRiNG) Programme is an initiative of the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to support efforts at promoting peace, stability and resilience to the effects of climate change in Nigeria.
In this article