As Nigerians experience a resurgence and the rise of the criminal economy of kidnapping for ransom, the national and subnational governments continue to find lasting solutions. However, these responses have become convoluted in recent years; whereas, a holistic assessment of the current crisis, the different ways it manifests and its evolution is critical. The federal government, in particular, has projected a strong stance prohibiting the payment of ransom. 

In April 2022, the Nigerian Senate passed a bill seeking to amend the Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2013 to prohibit the payment of ransom to kidnappers in Nigeria. The bill, as articulated by the lawmakers, aims to criminalize the payment of ransom to those who engage in abduction, kidnapping or terrorism for the purpose of securing the release of any person who has been wrongfully held. They argue that the overarching goal of this legislation is to mitigate the growing trend of kidnapping and ransom-related abduction in Nigeria, which is rapidly spreading nationwide. The rationale for the proposed ban is based on two main points. Deterring kidnappers by eliminating financial incentives and reducing the normalization of ransom negotiations in the country. Mass resistance against the bill through vigorous media campaigns halted its passage into law. Nevertheless, the development shows the disposition of the country’s legislators to the plight of victims of kidnapping in Nigeria, the government moving to the realm of policy to prohibit the payment of ransom. In a notable instance, Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu ordered security forces not to pay the ransom for the release of more than 250 school pupils abducted from their school in Kuriga village in Kaduna, north-west Nigeria. This is just one of the many instances in which the government has issued a policy directive forbidding the payment of ransom to kidnappers. 

The security and welfare of the people are the primary purpose of government. This is enshrined in Section 14(2)(b) of the Nigerian constitution. The various efforts by the government to stem the tide of kidnapping are quite commendable in spite of the limited success achieved. However, the stance of the state to ban payment of ransom misses the mark on many fronts, with far-reaching practical implications and ethical dilemmas. On the practical implications of the ban, these can be viewed through challenges to victims’ families, impact on victims’ safety and the law enforcement capacity. There are also the emotional and financial tolls on families prohibited from paying ransoms. The likelihood of potential underreporting of kidnapping cases can also rise as many family members fear the punitive measures. The increase in the likelihood of harm to hostages when ransoms cannot be paid is high. The risk of kidnappers resorting to alternative revenue streams (such as trafficking of victims) also becomes higher. More importantly, it is important to ascertain the government’s readiness to enforce the ban and rescue hostages. Resource and training gaps, which have been the bane of effective policing in Nigeria, impose serious constraints on the security agency in addressing organized kidnapping networks. 

The low performance of the police has been anchored on the gross inadequacy of the required logistics for virtually all aspects of policing functions, including investigations, arms and ammunition, communication, as well as transportation. The implication for policing has been the lowered standards or non-performance of the expected roles, which include a proactive response to kidnapping. On ethical dilemmas surrounding the ban, there is an issue of moral conflict; that is, balancing public safety and individual rights. It also raises questions on state responsibility on the duty to protect citizens versus reliance on punitive measures. The greatest concern lies with the human cost. Reports from survivors confirm that many victims have been killed due to the inability of their families to raise the required ransom in a timely manner. The legislative attempt to prohibit payment of ransom cited experiences from notable jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). However, neither the UK nor the US have enacted any legislation that imposes a blanket ban on ransom payments and criminalizes the act of private citizens or entities paying ransoms to secure the release of kidnapped individuals. While both countries maintain official policy to never make concessions to kidnappers, it is important to remind state officials in Nigeria that those taken hostage sometimes die as a result, according to authoritative media sources.  

The Nigerian government’s prohibition on ransom payments, although well-meaning, is expected to encounter significant challenges in compliance, especially in areas where governmental authority is limited and public confidence in security agencies is low. Localized community policing efforts, such as Amotekun in the South West, present a potentially more effective alternative; however, their success in aiding the prohibition of ransom payment hinges on their operational capabilities, the trust of the community and the perceived legitimacy of their actions. Should a sub-national policing outfit like Amotekun establish a reliable history of successful rescues and efficient intelligence operations, it could enhance adherence to the ransom ban in the area, as families might feel less compelled to negotiate with kidnappers directly. Nevertheless, due to the emotional urgency surrounding abduction incidents and the personal stakes involved, families are likely to prioritize the immediate safety of their relatives over official restrictions, particularly when security responses are slow or uncertain.