WHEN THE GUNS FELL SILENT: LESSONS FROM NIGERIA’S INTERNATIONAL QUDS DAY

By Professor Abdullahi Danladi

The annual commemoration of International Quds Day has once again echoed across continents as millions of people raised their voices for justice in Jerusalem and solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine. From Asia to Africa, from Europe to the Americas, the day as commanded by late Ayatollah Imam Khomeini (QS) has continued to stand as a moral declaration that the struggle against oppression cannot be erased by silence or intimidation. In Nigeria, however, the atmosphere preceding this year’s commemoration was thick with tension, speculation, and the ominous prediction of bloodshed.

Those anxieties did not arise in a vacuum. Statements attributed to the Embassy of the United States in Nigeria warning of possible unrest, combined with the visible deployment of police and other security agencies across the streets of Abuja, created the impression that Nigeria was standing on the brink of another tragic confrontation. For many observers familiar with the country’s recent history, the fears were understandable. Previous Quds Day processions have too often been stained by the loss of innocent lives, arbitrary arrests, and the painful spectacle of citizens punished simply for exercising their conscience and  rights .

Yet, in a remarkable turn of events, this year’s commemoration unfolded without the tragedies that many had predicted. Across cities and towns, the voices of the people rose in solidarity, their processions conducted with discipline and clarity of purpose. Not a single life was lost. Not a single clash was reported. The streets that some expected to become theatres of confrontation instead became avenues of peaceful expression.

Days before the event, the Islamic Movement in Nigeria under the leadership of Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky (H) addressed the nation in a press conference and reiterated a position it has consistently proclaimed: that the Quds Day procession is, and has always been, a peaceful act of solidarity. The Movement also used the occasion to condemn what it described as an American attack aimed at assassinating Sayyid Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The Movement denounced the act as a grave escalation of hostility against the forces of resistance and warned that such actions only deepen global tensions and expose the lengths to which imperial powers may go in their confrontation with voices that challenge their dominance.

At the same time, the Movement emphasized that the tragedies of the past were largely the result of attempts to forcibly disrupt the Quds Day gatherings. Their message was clear and unapologetic: allow the people to march peacefully, and peace will prevail.

What unfolded across Nigeria appears to vindicate that claim.

In several cities, including Kaduna, reports indicated that soldiers were present but maintained a posture of restraint, following the processions from behind without harassment or provocation. This simple act of restraint proved more powerful than the most elaborate show of force. For once, the guns did not speak. For once, the uniform did not become a symbol of intimidation. And for once, the citizens were allowed to express their convictions without the shadow of violence hanging over them.

The implications of this moment should not be underestimated. For years, Nigerians have been told that such gatherings inevitably lead to unrest. Yet the events of this year have exposed that narrative as deeply flawed. The truth that emerged from the streets is far more profound: it is not peaceful processions that produce chaos; it is the violent suppression of those processions that creates it.

This raises a fundamental and uncomfortable question for the custodians of security in Nigeria. If peace prevailed when restraint was exercised, why must confrontation be the default response to civic gatherings? Why must citizens expressing solidarity with the oppressed be treated as adversaries rather than members of the same national community?

The experience of this year’s Quds Day suggests that a different path is possible, one in which security agencies act not as instruments of repression but as guardians of order who understand the delicate balance between authority and liberty. The sight of soldiers observing rather than attacking, monitoring rather than provoking, may well represent a quiet but significant lesson in the ethics of public security.

And so one must ask a simple but powerful question: who has lost anything because this year’s Quds Day processions were allowed to proceed peacefully?

Certainly not the Nigerian state.

Certainly not the communities that hosted the events.

Certainly not the security agencies whose duty is to preserve order.

On the contrary, Nigeria gained something invaluable: proof that peace is not achieved through the barrel of a gun but through wisdom, restraint, and respect for the dignity of citizens.

The peaceful outcome of this year’s Quds Day should therefore serve as a mirror held before the nation. It reveals a truth that many have long insisted upon: when the state refrains from unnecessary confrontation, the people are fully capable of expressing their convictions with discipline and responsibility.

The lesson is clear. The streets of Nigeria do not have to be stained with blood for citizens to speak their conscience. When justice is allowed to march without chains, peace follows close behind.

If this year’s experience becomes the new norm rather than the exception, then Nigeria will have taken a quiet but meaningful step toward a future where civic expression is not feared but respected and where the voice of solidarity with the oppressed can rise freely without the echo of gunfire.