By Dr. Barth Shepkong

Once again, Jos North in Plateau State has awakened to violence. The recent killings in Angwan Rukuba are not simply another tragic episode in Nigeria’s long struggle with communal conflict. They raise a more troubling question—one that goes beyond grief and condemnation:

Was this preventable?
For decades, Plateau State has experienced recurring cycles of violence, often followed by familiar responses: emergency meetings, interfaith dialogues, peace accords, and public appeals for tolerance. These efforts are important, and in many cases sincere. Yet their outcomes remain fragile.

The uncomfortable truth is that peacebuilding, in the absence of credible security enforcement, cannot hold.
A central issue exposed by the latest attack is the persistent gap between early warning and early action. In many conflict-prone environments, threats—whether expressed publicly, circulated within communities, or shared through digital platforms—serve as signals. They are not always precise, but they are rarely meaningless. When such signals fail to trigger preventive measures, the result is not merely a lapse in judgment. It is a failure of the system designed to protect lives.

Security, at its core, depends on deterrence—the ability of the state to signal that violence will be anticipated, confronted, and punished. Where deterrence is weak or inconsistent, violence becomes less risky for perpetrators and more likely to occur. In that sense, the problem is not only the presence of armed actors, but the absence of credible consequences.

Equally concerning are reports of delayed response during the attack. In security operations, time is decisive. The difference between a rapid and a delayed intervention can determine whether an incident is contained or escalates into mass casualties. When response systems fail to act swiftly, public confidence erodes, and the perception of vulnerability deepens.

But the roots of the crisis run deeper still. Plateau’s recurring violence cannot be understood solely through the lens of immediate triggers. It reflects a longer history of unresolved grievances, contested identities, and uneven justice. These underlying tensions have often been managed politically rather than addressed structurally. As a result, they persist—latent but potent—ready to be activated by new provocations.

This is what makes each new episode of violence feel both shocking and familiar.
If there is a lesson to be drawn, it is this: security must precede sustainable peace.

Dialogue and reconciliation are indispensable, but they cannot substitute for the state’s primary obligation—to protect life and enforce the rule of law.

This requires more than reactive deployments after violence has occurred. It demands a shift toward preventive governance: treating threats as actionable intelligence, strengthening coordination among security agencies, ensuring rapid and decisive response capabilities, and holding perpetrators—and those who enable them—accountable through transparent legal processes.

Without these measures, peacebuilding risks becoming cyclical—activated after each crisis, only to be tested again when the next one emerges.

The tragedy in Angwan Rukuba is a moment for mourning. But it must also be a moment for reflection. A society cannot indefinitely normalize a pattern in which violence is followed by condolences, and then by silence, until the cycle repeats.

The question is no longer whether peace is desirable. It is whether the institutions responsible for securing it are prepared to act with the urgency and seriousness that the situation demands.
Until that question is answered, what we call “unexpected violence” will remain, in reality, entirely predictable.

Dr. Barth Shepkong is a public policy expert and diaspora leader and serves as National President of Plateau State Association USA, Inc., CEO of the Ohio African Chamber of Commerce, and Chair of the City of Columbus Commission on Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.

count | 55

When the State Fails to Act, Violence Becomes Predictable