A REVIEW ON CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY RESPONSE TO COMMUNAL VIOLENCE; A CASE STUDY OF 2025 BENUE KILLING.

1.1 Background to the Study Across the globe, communal violence remains one of the most entrenched threats to peace, state-building, and human security. From sectarian clashes in South Asia to ethnic massacres in Eastern Europe, such conflicts have historically undermined governance and societal cohesion. According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (2022), more than 70% of active non-international conflicts globally are communal in nature—rooted in identity, belonging, and contested claims over resources. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Sub-Saharan Africa, where communal violence has claimed over 35,000 lives between 2015 and 2023, with Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia leading the statistics (ACLED, 2023). These figures reflect not just the persistence of violence but the failure of existing systems to mediate group tensions effectively. Communal violence can be defined as violence perpetrated by members of one ethnic, religious, or cultural community against another, often in pursuit of identity assertion, retribution, or survival (Horowitz, 2000). Unlike political violence targeting state structures or terrorism with ideological underpinnings, communal violence is localized, often spontaneous, and deeply rooted in historical grievances and social structure. The complex interplay of identity, history, and exclusion gives communal conflicts their stubborn longevity. Scholars such as Fearon and Laitin (2021) argue that while ethnic diversity alone does not cause conflict, weak institutions and politicized identities increase the risk of violence. In contexts like Nigeria, where political competition often aligns with ethnic divisions, communal violence becomes both a symptom and a driver of state fragility. To address such challenges, crisis management emerges as a vital governance function. Crisis management refers to the systematic planning, coordination, and implementation of strategies to anticipate, mitigate, respond to, and recover from major disruptions, including communal violence (Mitroff, 2020). Effective crisis management involves four key phases: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Scholars like Coombs (2021) emphasize the importance of early warning systems, inter-agency coordination, and community-based resilience in managing crises. In fragile settings, however, these principles are rarely institutionalized. What often exists is an overreliance on military intervention and reactive measures, which, while sometimes necessary, do little to address root causes or promote sustainable peace. Public policy plays a critical role in institutionalizing crisis management, especially when it integrates conflict-sensitive planning, local participation, and post-conflict healing mechanisms. The failure to implement coherent crisis management strategies has dire implications. Apart from the immediate loss of life and displacement, communal violence disrupts agricultural activities, weakens local economies, exacerbates health vulnerabilities, and fuels a cycle of trauma and mistrust. In Nigeria, recurring violence in Benue State has led to massive internal displacement, school closures, and psychological stress among survivors. Against this backdrop, the current study is designed to explore the institutional, policy, and governance responses to communal violence in Benue State, with a specific focus on Yelwata. The study aims to understand the triggers, assess existing crisis management strategies, and propose actionable solutions that reflect both local realities and global best practices. The pattern is disturbingly consistent: attacks occur, lives are lost, humanitarian aid trickles in, yet systemic root causes remain unaddressed. The institutional mechanisms meant to manage such crises—ranging from the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) to State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs)—often lack operational capacity, coordination, and autonomy (Ezeibe et al., 2022). Furthermore, crisis communication and post-conflict reconciliation efforts are typically absent or superficial, allowing trauma, mistrust, and vengeance to persist beneath the surface. This gap between policy intention and implementation fuels a vicious cycle of violence and displacement. Public policy, when thoughtfully crafted and responsively implemented, has the potential to mediate communal tensions, build institutional legitimacy, and support recovery. However, the crisis in Benue has revealed not only a deficit in crisis preparedness but also a deeper challenge of inclusive governance. Policies aimed at managing communal violence are often top-down, lacking grassroots participation, cultural sensitivity, and contextual relevance. According to Ojo and Adebayo (2023), meaningful crisis management requires local ownership, integration of traditional mechanisms, and multi-sectoral coordination—a synergy largely missing in Benue’s recent experiences. Within this complex landscape, Yelwata, a town situated along the Benue-Nasarawa border, has become emblematic of the Nigerian state’s crisis of response. A flashpoint for ethnic violence, its strategic location, demographic composition, and history of marginalization make it an ideal case for studying the failures and possibilities of public policy in managing communal conflict. This study seeks to explore not just the manifestations of violence in Yelwata but to interrogate the effectiveness of the policy responses deployed and to what extent they reflect the principles of strategic crisis management in fragile contexts. 1.2 Statement of the Problem The North Central zone of Nigeria, encompassing Benue, Plateau, and Nasarawa States, has experienced decades of violent communal clashes, many of them involving Fulani pastoralists and local agrarian communities. These conflicts, initially sparked by competition over land and water resources, have taken on ethnic and religious dimensions. Human Rights Watch (2025) document hundreds of attacks attributed to Fulani herders, leaving thousands dead and displacing tens of thousands more. In mid June 2025, Yelwata village in Guma, Benue State, was the scene of one of the most devastating massacres recorded in Nigeria’s Middle Belt. Over the night of June 13–14, armed assailants—believed to be Fulani herdsmen—entered the community under cover of darkness, launching a coordinated attack. They opened fire on households and burned entire compounds, including a local market where many had sought refuge. Eyewitnesses reported finding at least 100 bodies; later accounts confirmed casualty figures as high as 150, with many victims burned alive in their homes and market stalls—details backed by Amnesty International and survivor testimonies. Among the dead were children, the elderly, and expectant mothers, their lives ended before dawn. President Tinubu later denounced the killings as “senseless bloodletting” and ordered the deployment of federal security forces to restore order. Yet, the swift escalation and scale of the attack starkly expose the weaknesses of Nigeria’s state apparatus, where impunity, selective enforcement, and simmering ethnic tensions continue to undermine the security and cohesion of vulnerable communities in the region. Studies such as that of Abbas (2020) and Ibeanu et al. (2022) have examined the socio-economic implications of these conflicts, highlighting how violence disrupts agricultural productivity, education, and local economies. However, a critical gap persists in understanding how specific policy responses—particularly in crisis management—affect the recurrence, mitigation, or resolution of such violence. In Yelwata, where displacement is recurrent and communal trust fractured, state interventions have often lacked the strategic depth needed to transform conflict dynamics. This gap in localized policy analysis limits the development of tailored, impactful interventions.More worryingly, the health, psychological, and demographic consequences of repeated violence remain underreported in policy discourse. Displacement camps are overcrowded, healthcare is overstretched, and trauma runs deep. The absence of long-term recovery frameworks and inclusive governance mechanisms exacerbates state fragility and fuels new cycles of grievance. It is against this backdrop that the present study investigates crisis management and policy response to communal violence in Benue State, with a specific focus on Yelwata as a microcosm of broader national challenges. 1.3 Objectives of the Study 1. To investigate the patterns and triggers of communal violence in Yelwata, Benue State. 2. To assess the institutional and policy responses to communal crises in the area. 3. To evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of current crisis management strategies. 4. To propose evidence-based recommendations for enhancing crisis preparedness and response. 1.4 Research Questions 1. What are the underlying causes and patterns of communal violence in Yelwata? 2. How have public institutions responded to the crisis in terms of policy and action? 3. What gaps exist in the current crisis management framework in Benue State? 4. What policy reforms could enhance crisis response and conflict mitigation? 1.5 Research Hypotheses H01: There is no significant relationship between the quality of public policy response and the recurrence of communal violence in Yelwata. H02: Crisis management interventions in Benue State do not significantly reduce the socio-economic impact of communal conflicts. 1.6 Significance of the Study This study provides timely and empirically grounded insights into the crisis management failures and potentials in one of Nigeria’s most volatile regions. For political scientists and public administrators, the research offers a nuanced analysis of institutional performance in the context of ethnic violence, contributing to the theoretical and practical understanding of governance in fragile states. Health providers and humanitarian actors stand to benefit from the study’s exploration of the indirect impacts of violence on public health and social service delivery. Understanding the long-term effects of conflict on population well-being can aid the design of integrated, responsive support systems for affected populations. For society at large, particularly in multi-ethnic states, the study illuminates the risks of neglecting root causes of communal violence and the dangers of policy inertia. It serves as a wake-up call for governments and civil society to invest not just in reactive measures but in preventive frameworks that strengthen resilience, promote justice, and uphold human dignity. 1.7 Scope of the Study Geographically, the study is confined to Yelwata community in Guma Local Government Area of Benue State. This location is chosen for its historical vulnerability to communal violence and its strategic importance in understanding conflict across the Benue-Nasarawa corridor. The population includes displaced persons, community leaders, government officials, and emergency responders. Conceptually, the study is anchored on two primary variables: communal violence (dependent variable) and crisis management/public policy response (independent variable). It will explore their interplay within the Yelwata context, taking into account mediating factors such as institutional capacity, inter-agency coordination, and community engagement. 1.8 Operational Definition of Terms Communal Violence: Violent conflict arising from ethnic, religious, or cultural group tensions, often involving mass displacement and casualties. Crisis Management: A coordinated approach involving preparedness, response, and recovery mechanisms aimed at mitigating the impact of emergencies. Public Policy Response: Formal actions taken by state institutions to address and resolve public issues, including legislative, administrative, and executive measures. Displacement: The forced migration of individuals or communities due to violence or conflict, often resulting in temporary or long-term loss of shelter and livelihood.