Sheikh Ahmad Gumi has dismissed renewed calls for his arrest, saying those pushing the demand were distorting his role in efforts to address banditry.
The scholar said his involvement with armed groups was part of a wider search for peace and was undertaken with the knowledge of security authorities.
Public debate over his activities resurfaced at the weekend after the cleric restated his support for dialogue as a viable approach to ending rural violence.
Gumi posted a lengthy reaction on his Facebook page on Sunday, criticising individuals who insist that he should be detained for meeting with bandit leaders.
He described the campaign against him as an emotional outburst that ignores the facts surrounding previous attempts to de-escalate violence in the North.
The scholar said it is unfair to describe his engagements as sympathy for criminals, noting that he acted only to lower tensions and encourage offenders to surrender.
He recalled an engagement in January 2021 in Sabon Garin Yadi forest in Giwa Local Government Area of Kaduna State as an example of earlier attempts at reconciliation.
According to him, he went into the forest with the then Kaduna State Commissioner of Police, who represented the Inspector General of Police during the visit.
He said the meeting drew more than six hundred armed men who agreed to end attacks if certain conditions were fulfilled by the government.
“I was at Sabon Garin Yadi forest, accompanied by the Kaduna State Commissioner of Police.”
“This meeting was part of a peace initiative where we preached to over 600 bandits and their commanders, who agreed to lay down their arms in exchange for security and basic amenities,” he said.
He maintained that the dialogue was legitimate, transparent, and conducted with the full knowledge and approval of relevant authorities.
Gumi criticised those attacking him rather than interrogating the government’s alleged failure to fulfil its commitments.
The cleric questioned the basis for demands that he be detained, arguing that his mediation efforts were aimed at reducing violence and driven by national interest.
“So, what is there to arrest for? For calling them to lay arms or amenities for them, or to educate the nation on their side of the story?” he asked.
Gumi further accused his critics of hypocrisy, insisting that the constitution guarantees free speech and that divergent opinions must not be treated as crimes.
“Is free speech no longer part of our constitutional right? Is their call for arrest not also prejudiced and an incitement to more violence?” he queried.
Gumi explained that the armed groups asked for basic community facilities, freedom from arbitrary arrest and assurances that they would not be targeted after surrendering.
He said none of the requests were implemented, which eventually weakened the peace process.
The scholar said the collapse of that window should prompt questions about government commitment, not attacks on those who facilitated talks.
Gumi questioned whether persuading armed groups to drop their weapons or explaining their grievances to the public could be treated as wrongdoing.
He said anger driven narratives do not solve the crisis and urged citizens to embrace practical solutions instead of personal attacks.
Gumi prayed for national unity and for a society free from bigotry and hostility toward differing views.
