Lately, the conversation on matters of insecurity and kidnapping is in the spotlight as the season is being described as an epidemic of kidnapping. This is not to assume that the issue of kidnapping is new. Far from it. The case of kidnapping for ransom has been with us before now in the South-South, South East, with inroads into the South West. Nor is the case any different in the North, as kidnapping and its related twin, banditry, has been a recurring theme in areas such as Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna, Sokoto, Borno, Yobe, and Kebbi states. This is in addition to other areas like Plateau, Niger, Kogi and Benue states.
Therefore, it is safe to allude that matters of insecurity and kidnapping are only now in the spotlight since they have become widespread in other areas, including the Federal Capital City, Abuja. For instance, people are now being abducted not only at night but even in broad daylight. Sometimes, the abduction is even from where they supposedly should be safe, the comfort of their homes.
Suffice it to say, arguments abound that the widespread insecurity and kidnapping that bedevilled the country can be explained in the context of the rising economic hardship, occasioned especially by the removal of petroleum subsidies and the reform in the foreign exchange sector. It is within this, that the assertion by Senator Uba Sani that poverty and unemployment remain at the heart of the rising insecurity and kidnapping in the North West finds traction.
Undoubtedly, Governor Sani’s prognosis bears a wider applicability and can be taken to speak on the proximate cause of the rising insecurity and kidnapping in Nigeria. However, his views only touch on the surface and thus, become incumbent to further interrogate for a deeper understanding of the menace of insecurity and kidnapping.
Writings on insecurity, and kidnapping, whether in the North or the South tend to locate the problem, among others, in one or all the following underlisted issues. One is the challenge or problem of ungoverned spaces. Two, the constitutional impediments that restrain component states from taking charge of security in their domain. Third, the non-availability of boots on the ground. Fourth, the absence of inadequate funding in the fight against insecurity and the failure to deploy appropriate technology in the fight against insecurity and kidnapping.
But even more so, other contending views to which I readily subscribe, while in tandem with the foregoing position, seem to also suggest that the menaces of insecurity and kidnapping being suffered were sustained by what can be ascribed to as the 3cs. The specifics of which are simply, executive complacency, community complicity, and the complicity of security agents.
The case of executive complacency needs to be gleaned from the perceived absence of official promptness and urgency in matters relating to cases of rising kidnapping that characterised the last eight years. This image thus, presented the government as weak and allowed criminal groups to operate with impunity.
Subsumed within this argument is the failure of the government, both at the federal and state levels, to prosecute many of those arrested committing these heinous crimes. The fact remains, except the government proactively arrests and punishes those found guilty to serve as a deterrent, there may be other elements in society willing to thread that same path.
Interestingly, the case of community complacency can be seen from several angles. Firstly, in the manner, some community members have turned into providers of information to bandits and kidnappers, which aids their activities.
Secondly, there is also the allegation that most of those involved in these criminal activities are well-known within their communities. At least, this is the reality in most parts of banditry-infested areas of Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, and Kebbi states.
On complicity on the part of agents of security, this is also derived from many perspectives. Notable is that often when arrests were made of culprits, some bad elements within the security bureaucracy are compromised to ensure bail was arranged for their release, and thereafter, the matter is more often than not buried.
It is, therefore, not surprising as reports have it that five out of the kidnappers who took part in the abduction and the killing of Nabeeha around the Bwari axis had at one time been arrested (perhaps, on the same offence) and later released on bail.
Additionally, the complicity of security agents in matters of insecurity can be seen in reports that allegedly link security in the supply (trending videos of some of those arrested over these abound) and provide training for these criminals but also share in the ransom paid to them.
There are reports by a Nigerian political risk analysis firm that between 2011 and 2020, $18.34 million, equivalent to N23 billion was paid as ransom to kidnappers. In another report, between July 2021 and June 2022 alone, Nigerians have paid N653.7 million to kidnappers as ransom, amidst the grim reality of poverty and hunger in the country.
In the face of the current economic hardship, the skyrocketing cost of daily living, with most farmers unable to access their farms due to banditry and kidnapping, these, no doubt, point to a country dangerously at a crossroads.
This, therefore, imposes the need for President Tinubu to step up the ante by putting in place measures that would create more jobs; eradicate poverty; and ensure the adoption of appropriate technology that would enhance the fight against insecurity in the country. But even more so, it behoves that more powers of policing be devolved to the component units that will ensure community participation in the fight against kidnapping and ensure the security and livelihood of our people.
Ahmed, PhD can be reached via [email protected]
