Ultimately, the Nigerian government must come clean before its “good intentions” backfire. The probing questions remain: Are you paying ransom to terrorists or not? Are you doing so to convince citizens that you are working, or merely to deflect attention? Are ransom payments driven by political correctness, aimed at winning hearts and projecting competence? Or are they an admission (unspoken but evident) that the government lacks the capacity to confront terrorists decisively?
As it stands today, almost every Nigerian knows or has some information about how the payment of ransom and the release of victims are negotiated, ever since abduction became part of our daily lives. The process typically involves secrecy, anxious moments, uncertainties, non-involvement of law enforcement, and a discreet payment system dictated by the bandits or terrorists themselves. A glimpse into their modus operandi was the recent parade of over 170 abductees in the Woro community to contradict the government’s claim of about 50 kidnapped victims and to demand ransom.
|
|
However, mass abductions, which require an equally sensitive, discreet but robust ransom payment system, must inevitably involve the government and public institutions. Questions are now being asked about the propriety of ransom payments and the sincerity of the process for securing the release of large numbers of people, including young students and children. In recent times, the abduction and eventual release or rescue of students of Government Girls Comprehensive Secondary School in Kebbi; more than 287 students abducted from a school in Kuriga, Chikun Local Government Area; and 160 worshippers taken from churches in Kurmi Wali community of Kajuru Local Government Area in Kaduna State, have all prompted questions about what transpired behind closed doors.
Meanwhile, the abduction and eventual release or rescue of 300 children from St Mary’s School in Papiri, Agwara Local Government Area of Niger State without a single shot fired, has become the centre of controversy, following a recent revelation by AFP that contradicted the government’s position. The claim that a heavy ransom was paid for their release, despite the government’s assertion of a rescue, without any security operation or arrest of the “magnanimous criminals,” has triggered a credibility crisis for the government, which continues to maintain that it used “back channels” in its rescue efforts, whatever that means.
|
|
|
|---|
Yet, the outpouring of empathy that follows such releases or rescues often overshadows deeper inquiries into the methods used. After all, no amount of money can equate human lives.
Despite official denials, it is widely believed that money did change hands. This speculation appeared to gain traction when AFP reported that the Nigerian government paid a multimillion dollar ransom to Boko Haram for the release of the Papiri schoolchildren. The Minister of Information, Mohammed Idris, dismissed the AFP report as false.
The biggest fallout, however, is the possible manipulation of ransom payments to achieve broader political goals. Governors may feel compelled to pay because of the political implications of losing public support. Many governors in affected states are serving their first term, with re-election campaigns approaching. There is therefore pressure to impress the electorate and demonstrate responsiveness.
The ransom payment economy is perhaps the most sensitive issue arising from the recent quagmire of banditry, terrorism and kidnapping. No one deserves the ordeal of kidnapping, least of all parents enduring grief and anxiety over their abducted children. But it matters how the government responds to such acts of impunity and what it does to secure the victims’ return. In its rescue efforts, the government has often failed to apprehend terrorists. There is no footage of negotiations or evidence of combat engagement. Would mercenary terrorists simply release abductees without some form of inducement?
Many Nigerians would rather believe the AFP story, which sadly portrays the government’s apparent helplessness and the continued impunity and extortion tactics of Boko Haram terrorists. As harrowing as these incessant abductions are for victims and their families, their economic value, now a booming business being exploited by terrorists to undermine the country, portends an even more sinister outcome.
The biggest fallout, however, is the possible manipulation of ransom payments to achieve broader political goals. Governors may feel compelled to pay because of the political implications of losing public support. Many governors in affected states are serving their first term, with re-election campaigns approaching. There is therefore pressure to impress the electorate and demonstrate responsiveness. At the federal level, the security architecture coordinated by the NSA’s office must also consider the political implications of mass abductions for President Bola Tinubu, whose re-election bid looms in less than a year.
These aligning political interests provide strong incentives for monetary intervention in rescue efforts. But we must also consider the implications of paying ransom to Boko Haram terrorists and other criminal groups. Though they are a difficult choice, in light of humanitarian concerns, ransom payments are at best short-term fixes that cannot permanently resolve insecurity.
On the contrary, government paying ransom may encourage more mass abductions, particularly targeting public institutions and sensitive, divisive spaces such as worship centres. It creates lucrative opportunities for terrorists to stockpile arms with ransom proceeds, thereby financing further acts of violence.
Once ransom payment becomes an accepted strategy, potential victims may be placed at even greater risk if ransom demands are not met. Properly equipped and adequately motivated, our security apparatus, including the police, army and Air Force, have the capacity to confront terrorists and deliver a decisive blow.
Instead, we should empower our security agencies to take charge of rescue operations, apprehend perpetrators and allow due legal processes to unfold without undermining law enforcement. Once ransom payment becomes an accepted strategy, potential victims may be placed at even greater risk if ransom demands are not met. Properly equipped and adequately motivated, our security apparatus, including the police, army and Air Force, have the capacity to confront terrorists and deliver a decisive blow.
Nigerians doubt the government because there is little proof of its so-called rescue efforts and scant evidence of combat engagement. By contrast, the alleged masterminds of the Owo church massacre and acts of banditry in Benue, investigated by the SSS, are currently being tried in court. As the public awaits the verdict, few will allege deception or compromise, because court proceedings are reported transparently by the press. This is what transparency looks like, and it is what Nigerians expect in matters as sensitive as ransom payments, if indeed any are made.
Ultimately, the Nigerian government must come clean before its “good intentions” backfire. The probing questions remain: Are you paying ransom to terrorists or not? Are you doing so to convince citizens that you are working, or merely to deflect attention? Are ransom payments driven by political correctness, aimed at winning hearts and projecting competence? Or are they an admission (unspoken but evident) that the government lacks the capacity to confront terrorists decisively?
The failure to be forthright with information is precisely why many Nigerians find the AFP account more plausible than official assurances. Between the Nigerian people and their government, trust remains fragile and, at best, a probability.
Zainab Suleiman Okino (FNGE) chairs Blueprint Newspaper’s Editorial Board. She is a syndicated columnist and can be reached via: [email protected]
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
