Criminality in the form of kidnapping took a new turn in Nigeria and some governments had no qualms negotiating with the criminal elements involved. The entire process inevitably involves payment of ransom in order to secure the release of the victims. Even the Federal Government hadn’t been averse to the practice as the case of the insurgents who abducted school girls at various times showed. Of recent, however, there have been cases in the north-west of Nigeria where criminals abducted people and the state governors paid ransom only for the criminals to purchase more weapons and repeat the process. Voices of regrets have since been heard over this turn of events by the state governors concerned.
But apart from governments at the federal and state levels, private citizens have for long been involved in payment of ransom to secure the release of their loved ones. It’s still ongoing, most of them unreported and unheard. Sometimes family members don’t even want to talk about it; they are just relieved and grateful that they have their people back from the clutches of near death. There are occasions though when private citizens and governments pay ransom yet the abducted persons are killed. In this criminal activity, nothing is sure, nothing is guaranteed. But why do criminals abduct and demand for ransom from governments, and why do they abduct and demand ransom from private citizens? There are many reasons, including the reason of the insurgents who want their fellows in crime to be returned to them after government forces caught them. Insurgents have also abducted in such a manner that shows government that they are able to strike, and in the process attract attention to themselves thus increasing the leverage that they believe they have.
As for abductors who demand ransom from private citizens it has been established that these are criminals who see it as a means of simply making money. Some of them have even been identified as foreigners from other West African countries who see Nigeria as a place where money can be made through criminal acts such as kidnapping. We know that private citizens have silently been paying ransom and so much money is exchanging hands this way. In fact, there are occasions when people organize their own abduction. There have been cases too when pupils are said to have seen the fathers of their friends among the criminals who kidnap them in their school premises. These are signs of how much criminals are beginning to regard kidnapping as a means of making money.
A few weeks ago, students of a higher institution owned by the FG were abducted in Kaduna State. Some escaped, others were reportedly released. There are still a few dozens left in the hands of the kidnappers who are said to be asking the government for a ransom. The governor of Kaduna State, Malam Nasir El-Rufai, has insisted that he will not pay ransom to criminals. He explains his position thus: The experience of many states in the Northwest of Nigeria since 2015 has included cattle rustling, kidnappings, killings and the devastation of communities by criminals. Several states sought to negotiate their way out of the problems by talking to bandits, paying them money or offering them amnesty. This has not worked and has only encouraged the criminals to press ahead for a surrender of the public treasury to them. That is clearly not in the public interest.
“Mass abduction was like a novelty in 2014. But the facts have changed since then. Negotiations and ransoms have been undertaken, but these have not stopped the criminals. It has only encouraged them. It is only prudent to review one’s position when the facts change, and the suggestion made by a citizen years ago cannot be taken as the immutable answer to a serious problem which has evolved since 2014, no matter the viral replays of the said video clip.”
Now no-negotiation, as well as no-payment of ransom to criminals or terrorists is a policy followed by most Western countries. There are multiple motivations for such policies, including a lack of guarantee of the hostage’s safe return upon payment, as well as being careful to not create an incentive for future abductions. However, the policy is often limited to not paying ransom demands, and doesn’t apply to other forms of negotiation. As long as a country consistently applies this policy on a no-exception basis, criminals can anticipate that there will be no reward for trading hostages.
It is worth noting that an investigation by The New York Times found that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have taken in at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008. These payments were made almost exclusively by European governments, which funneled the money through a network of proxies, sometimes masking it as development aid. But some Western countries such as the United States, Canada, and Britain tend to not negotiate or pay ransom to terrorists. Such countries often follow the view of scholars and other experts on this issue. For instance, many scholars and policymakers state that negotiating with terrorist groups legitimises them, their goals and their methods. They assert that such negotiations incite violence, weaken democratic states, and weaken the norm of non-violence. So, in a situation where payment of so much ransom money since 2008 made Al-Qaeda to become such a nuisance threatening everyone in every part of the globe, is it the right policy to continue to pay ransom to criminal element?
This is a fundamental question in the situation where Nigeria finds itself. Here criminals are becoming bolder with the kind of funds and weapons they have access to. Will payment of ransom stop them? Definitely no. This is more so as weapons are easily accessible across our borders. Insurgents purchase. Other criminal elements also purchase to unleash crimes such as kidnapping on Nigerians. The flow of weapons will continue for as long as there are failed states such as Libya in our vicinity. Until Libya is tidied up, weapons will continue to be available to criminals. Payment of ransom will enable them to purchase more and cause more trouble for Nigerians.
There is the angle of our porous borders as well. Many foreigners illegally come in to mix with us. Their work, means of livelihood, and antecedents are not known. They are potential sources of criminal elements and criminality. In addition to these is our security architecture. There is no effective policing. For as long as people who are familiar with their environment and the different elements therein are not in charge of their security, the holes in the system will continue to be exploited both by local and foreign criminal elements.
What then should be happening in Kaduna State in regard to cases of kidnapping and banditry? These acts of criminality have to be curbed and the FG has a vital role to play. This has not much to do with deployment of more troops to trouble spots. Rather it has to do with the use of a multidimensional approach which includes ensuring that our external environment is tidier than it is at the moment. West African nations all the way to Libya need to be engaged in such a way that a measure of political as well as economic stability exists in each of them. There has to be better deployment of surveillance technology at our borders, both the manned borders and the unmanned ones. Deployment of more men is not what we need. Technology that enables us to see what happens at every inch of our border is what we need. It helps to track situation in our country better if we know through advanced technological devices – drones and surveillance cameras – what enters our country and who enters. It is of particular importance that we invest in air power. It gives us an advantage over criminal elements.
At the state level, the Kaduna State government should continue to encourage local security initiatives which ensure that no outsider or insider is able to perpetrate any serious act of criminality without it being known or reported. An acquisition of ability by the state government to respond in real time in cases of threat to its people is also important. Even as the FG holds on to the police, one should think the Kaduna State government could also explore areas in its concurrent powers to makes itself able to use air power and such like to aid its residents better and faster when they are in distress. If the south-west states can come up with security outfits, and the Kaduna State government can have its well thought-out and well-executed KASTELEA, then what stops the state from having a rapid response outfit in regard to security matters which can then collaborate with FG’s security apparatus for now?
From some of his reforms, and the reorganization of the working of the apparatus of the state government that he has carried out thus far, one would want to imagine that Governor El-Rufai is imaginative and forward-thinking enough to have his own ideas on what to do at the state level regarding known security challenges. Why he hasn’t gone ahead to implement such ideas that he has in the face of the security challenges posed by criminal elements in his state is a question that could only keep many observers wondering.
