The Ransom Dilemma: NSA’s Warning and the Realities of Insecurity in Nigeria (OPINION)
By Sir Churchill E. Ajusah
In light of the recent warning issued by the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu against the payment of ransom to kidnappers and insurgents, the debate surrounding the ethics, practicability, and consequences of such payments has intensified. Nigeria, a nation currently grappling with a wave of insecurity marked by insurgency, banditry, and rampant kidnapping, faces a critical juncture in its fight for peace and stability.
The NSA’s statement, while aligned with global counterterrorism strategies, comes at a time when the country is still reeling from a series of gruesome attacks, particularly the recent Plateau massacre. In this tragic event, numerous lives were lost, and communities were devastated by armed groups, reigniting fears of unchecked violence. The incident underscores a grim reality of insurgents and criminals continuing to operate with impunity across swathes of the nation, emboldened by weak law enforcement and a lack of consequences.
Kidnapping has evolved into one of the most lucrative criminal enterprises in Nigeria. Once limited to specific regions, particularly the northeast where Boko Haram holds sway, it has now become a national crisis. From the abduction of school children in the northwest to the capture of commuters on highways in the south, no region is immune. The victims span all demographics ranging from students, farmers, religious leaders to foreign nationals, making the threat both unpredictable and universal.
For many Nigerians, especially those whose loved ones have been taken, paying ransom becomes a desperate act of survival rather than a willing contribution to criminal enterprise. The emotional toll on families and friends of kidnapped victims is profound. The uncertainty, sleepless nights, and psychological trauma often push families to go to extreme lengths such as selling property, borrowing money, and crowdfunding, just to secure the release of their loved ones. In such contexts, the NSA’s directive, though rational from a security standpoint, seems emotionally detached from the lived experiences of affected citizens.
Moreover, the torture and inhumane treatment of kidnapped victims add urgency to the desperation of families. Survivors often recount harrowing experiences of physical abuse, starvation, and psychological torment. The knowledge that a family member is enduring such cruelty often eliminates patience or reliance on state security agencies, which are frequently perceived as either under-resourced or unwilling to act swiftly.
However, from a strategic perspective, the NSA’s warning is not without merit. Ransom payments not only provide insurgents and criminal gangs with financial lifelines but also encourage further abductions. With every successful ransom transaction, the business of kidnapping becomes more attractive. It emboldens criminals, funds the purchase of arms, and undermines state authority. Furthermore, it sends a message that violence is an effective tool of negotiation, a perception that is disastrous for national stability.
The pertinent question is “Can Nigeria, in its current state, afford a strict no-ransom policy without first ensuring adequate security architecture?” Critics argue that the government’s moral stance must be matched with tangible action. There is widespread public dissatisfaction with the government’s failure to prevent attacks or promptly rescue victims. In the absence of timely interventions, citizens often feel abandoned and are forced to make hard choices to preserve life.
The broader implications of a continued ransom economy are troubling. Beyond the immediate danger of emboldening criminals, it distorts Nigeria’s economic environment. The influx of illicit funds fuels corruption, disturbs local economies, and leads to capital flight as businesses and investors pull out of high-risk areas. The tourism sector, already weakened by instability, suffers further setbacks, while local communities live in perpetual fear and economic uncertainty.
Additionally, the normalization of ransom payments further erodes trust between the state and its citizens. When people are forced to do what the government warns against simply to survive, it speaks to a systemic failure. It fosters resentment and cynicism towards leadership and the security agencies, weakening national unity and morale.
To reconcile the NSA’s directive with the realities on the ground, a multipronged approach is necessary. The government must invest significantly in intelligence, surveillance, and rapid response capabilities. Quick and decisive action in the aftermath of kidnappings can reduce dependence on ransom. In addition, there should be a national victims’ fund, supported by both public and private stakeholders, to support families financially and emotionally during such crises. This fund could cover temporary financial needs, trauma counseling, and rehabilitation of victims. Furthermore, communities must be empowered with local security initiatives, such as state policing and community vigilante networks, operating under strict regulations to prevent abuse. Preventive education and awareness campaigns must also be part of the strategy, helping citizens understand the broader implications of ransom payments while equipping them with resources to seek lawful alternatives. Lastly, there must be visible accountability. The perpetrators of recent attacks, such as the Plateau massacre, must be brought to justice swiftly. A justice system that works, coupled with publicized convictions, will send a clear message that crime does not pay.
In conclusion, while the NSA’s warning against paying ransoms is grounded in legitimate security concerns, it risks falling on deaf ears unless the government demonstrates the capacity to protect its citizens and respond effectively to insecurity. Until then, many families will continue to make difficult decisions under duress. The Nigerian state must rise to meet the security challenges of today with both empathy and efficacy. Only then can the war against insurgency and kidnapping be truly won.
By Sir Churchill E. Ajusah, Political and Public Affairs Analyst
