By Mohammed Bello Doka
The Senate’s decision to move a bill aimed at classifying kidnapping as an act of terrorism reflects the depth of Nigeria’s security crisis. Public frustration is justified. Communities are under siege, highways are unsafe, and schools and farms have become targets. However, rebranding kidnapping as terrorism, while sounding decisive, does not address the real source of the problem.
Nigeria already operates under multiple laws that criminalise kidnapping with severe penalties. Both federal and state statutes provide for life imprisonment and even the death penalty in extreme cases. The persistent rise in kidnapping therefore exposes a systemic failure of enforcement, not a weakness in legislation.
Criminal behaviour is shaped less by the severity of laws than by the likelihood of being caught and punished. In Nigeria, kidnappers operate with confidence because arrests are infrequent, investigations are poorly handled, prosecutions drag on for years, and convictions are rare. Until this reality changes, criminals will continue to view kidnapping as a low-risk, high-reward enterprise.
More damaging is the contradiction in government policy. A state cannot declare kidnappers terrorists while simultaneously negotiating with them, paying ransoms through official or unofficial channels, or offering amnesty under the banner of peace talks. Terrorism laws are founded on the principle that the state does not bargain with those who violently challenge its authority. Once negotiation becomes policy, the credibility of the law collapses.
These negotiations send a clear message to criminal groups: violence attracts attention, leverage and profitability. Each ransom payment — whether acknowledged or denied — strengthens kidnapping networks, finances more operations and expands recruitment. Criminals do not fear reclassification; they respond to predictable outcomes.
There is also the risk that expanding terrorism laws without fixing enforcement structures may worsen injustice. Terrorism legislation grants sweeping powers, including prolonged detention and asset seizure. In a system already struggling with accountability and selectivity, such powers may be used disproportionately against weaker citizens or political dissent, while well-organised criminal networks remain insulated.
What Nigeria urgently needs is not stronger language but stronger institutions. Intelligence-driven security operations, disruption of ransom and logistics channels, effective prosecution, protection for witnesses, accountability within security agencies and an unequivocal end to negotiations with criminal groups would deliver far greater results than any legislative amendment.
Security is ultimately about state resolve. Until the government demonstrates consistent enforcement of existing laws and treats criminal violence as a law-enforcement and governance failure rather than a public-relations problem, insecurity will persist, regardless of how harshly crimes are renamed.
Tags
News