Does the Government’s Anti-Ransom Ban Make Sense?

In recent years, insecurity has become a prevalent issue in many Nigerian communities. This trend can be attributed to the widespread emergence and dominance of various non-state armed groups throughout the country. These groups, characterized by their diverse motivations, objectives and strategies, include terrorists, criminal gangs, bandits and amorphous criminal groups often described as ‘unknown gunmen’ in media reports. At present, banditry is recognized as a critical security challenge facing Nigeria. This complex crime encompasses a range of violent activities, including murder, rape, illegal arms possession, cattle rustling and kidnapping for ransom. While bandits have become more notorious for kidnapping for ransom in Nigeria, this form of crime has also become a common denominator for these diverse criminal groups operating in rural and urban areas. 

Nigeria’s epidemic crisis of kidnapping for ransom unites the north and south as it cuts across regions and socio-economic classes. Farmers, school children, religious leaders, public servants and wealthy elites have all become victims. The rise in kidnapping for ransom is driven by several interconnected factors. These include socio-economic, political and gross security challenges that have allowed criminal activities to thrive in Nigeria. For instance, lack of livelihood opportunities and high levels of unemployment, especially among youth, have pushed many into criminal activities like kidnapping. Widening income disparities also create an environment where crime becomes a means of survival or social levelling for many people. The World Bank reported that 87 million Nigerians live below the poverty line—the world’s second-largest poor population after India. 

In north-west Nigeria, weak governance has facilitated the operations of criminal groups in rural and semi-urban areas, particularly as they increasingly resort to kidnapping for ransom to finance their terror activities. The limited presence of government authority and inadequate security measures in these remote locations create ideal conditions for such criminal activities to flourish. Moreover, the porous nature of Nigeria’s borders allows for the smuggling of illegal weapons, which further empowers these groups to conduct kidnappings. Additionally, the alleged collusion and complicity of some security personnel in these activities undermine the effectiveness of anti-kidnapping initiatives. In this context, the success of previous ransom payments has not only underscored the profitability of kidnapping but also contributed to a criminal culture that sustains this practice. 

Due to the activities of bandits, north-west Nigeria has emerged as the hotspot of this menace. Notable incidents of kidnapping include the case of the abduction of 287 pupils in the Chikun area of Kaduna State in March 2024. According to the 2024 Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, between 2019 and 2023, there were 662 recorded kidnapping-related events in the north-west, about 169 per cent more than the 246 events recorded in the north-east during the same period. From 2019 to 2022, the north-west saw a marked increase in annual kidnapping-related incidents. Throughout this period, kidnapping became the principal economic activity for armed bandit groups, taking the place of cattle rustling, which previously constituted the majority of their income from 2011 to 2019. As cattle populations dwindled and herders moved on to safer regions, the profitability of cattle rustling decreased, compelling bandits to explore alternative sources of revenue. 

Estimates on the illicit flow of money through ransom payments in Nigeria remain tenuous due to the clandestine nature of the negotiations. SBM Intelligence, an Africa-centric strategic consulting firm, reported that from July 2023 to June 2024, there were 7,568 abductions across 1,130 incidents in the country. During this period, kidnappers demanded a total of nearly ₦11 billion (approximately $6,871,931) in ransom but received only an approximate ₦1 billion, which represents a mere 9.5 per cent of the total ransom sought. Among the 1,130 kidnapping incidents, Zamfara had 132 cases with 1,639 victims, Kaduna reported 113 incidents with 1,113 victims and Katsina noted 119 incidents involving 887 victims. Certainly, the real figures are higher than what is reported because not all payments made to the various criminal groups as ransom are usually reported in the media. 

These figures are particularly important because of the rising poverty levels in the country and how kidnapping is affecting the economically disadvantaged citizens in towns and villages. Katsina and Zamfara, considered the hotspots of banditry and abduction in the north-west, are two of the country’s ten poorest states, according to the 2022 Nigeria Multidimensional Poverty Index, published by the National Bureau of Statistics. Narratives from families affected in the north-west region reveal the profound impact of ransom payments, which have not only taken away their means of survival but also led to the tragic loss of family members. In their quest to free their abducted relatives, certain individuals have incurred significant debts through loans, while others have been forced to part with valuable assets, including agricultural land, livestock and other properties.  

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.  

The escalating trend of kidnappings and the subsequent ransom demands in Nigeria highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of the country’s security framework. In this regard, the importance of policing emerges as a key factor in mitigating the disorder and extensive insecurity that afflict many communities. It is crucial to conduct a detailed review and revision of Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, which currently centralizes policing authority at the federal level. Establishing a decentralized policing model would facilitate a community-driven approach to law enforcement, empowering local communities to engage in the planning, implementation and resource allocation necessary for ensuring public safety. 

Additionally, it is essential for the federal government to collaborate with state governments in order to confront the urgent issue of vulnerable borders. By engaging in unified efforts to recruit, train and deploy well-equipped security forces to these borders, the effectiveness of surveillance can be improved, thus curtailing the influx of illegal arms into the country. Bandits utilize such weapons to execute attacks and abduct innocent civilians for ransom. Furthermore, both federal and state governments should focus on implementing targeted socio-economic programmes to mitigate poverty and enhance opportunities for the youth, who are often susceptible to recruitment into banditry. The resolution of these issues hinges on making substantial investments in agriculture, infrastructure, education and other sectors that create employment opportunities for young people. 

Addressing the security challenge requires the implementation of communication technology in security operations. Agencies such as the Nigeria Police Force and the State Security Service must capitalize on the integration of SIM cards with National Identity Numbers to disrupt the communication networks of kidnappers, preventing them from effectively planning and negotiating. Furthermore, it is imperative for the government to provide security agencies with drone technology to enhance real-time surveillance of at-risk communities and key transportation routes, thereby improving the speed of incident response and the mobilization of security forces to critical hotspots. The protection of forest reserves and other unregulated areas that harbour kidnappers and criminals is vital, serving as an integral element in a holistic approach involving both government and society to address the kidnapping issues in Nigeria⎈