Criminalising Ransom Payment, A Psychopathic Option

By Dr.Muiz Banire SAN

As citizens of Nigeria were heaving a sigh f relief from the
release of the remaining students of Greenfield University upon the
alleged payment of the huge sum of one N180 million by the parents
as ransom, over 200 pupils of Islamiyya School in Tegina, Rafi
Local Government Area, Niger State, were again carted away like
chattels by kidnappers.

Prior to the release of the remaining 14 students of Greenfield
University, five of them had already been killed by the kidnappers
as a demonstration bait. Two days after, again, a school bus was
hijacked with the attendant in Ondo State. This is just an
illustration of the pattern of daily occurrences in the country.
Undoubtedly, kidnapping is already a menace in Nigeria. It is one
of the few thriving “industries” in the country.

The interesting thing about kidnapping in Nigeria is that it is
not limited to civilians executing it but security agents now
actively participate directly and indirectly in the illicit
business. In some instances, some of the security agents carry out
the act directly on their own, while, in some other instances,
proxies are either used or compromise of state weapons is adopted.
It is in the midst of this general insecurity that Nigerians now
feel disillusioned and dejected. No Nigerian is in doubt about the
onslaught.

Arising from this ugly development, the Senate of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, weeks ago, opted to amend the Terrorism
Prevention Act, 2013, to curtail the menace. I listened with rapt
attention to the presentation of the bill by the proponent, Senator
Francis Ezenwa.  The bill is titled “Terrorism Act (Amendment)
Bill, 2021.” The bill, as moved by the proponent, is essentially
aimed at amending, by way of replacement of Section 14 of the said
Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013, by imposing a sentence of 15 years
jail term on anyone that participates in the payment of ransom in
Nigeria.

While presenting the bill, the sponsor alluded to several causes
of kidnapping in the country in such a manner that one would expect
a conclusion that addresses solutions to the myriad of causes
identified by him. Shockingly, however, the conclusion reached by
him is the need to amend the law to reflect a new regime of
criminalization of ransom payment directly or through proxy by any
victim of kidnapping either directly or through proxy. What was
amazing about the session was that it was meant to be a debate of
the proposal but ended up being a monologue. Apart from the
seconder, there was no further discussion than commitment of the
bill to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. In this wise, let me
state that the Nigerian Senate never ceases to amaze
anyone. 

The thought of criminalizing a helpless situation is not only
weird but the conspiratorial silence that welcomed the presentation
is worrisome. The import of the proposal is to punish a kidnap
victim who paid or facilitated the payment of ransom for his
release; or such a person who paid for the release of a kidnapped
victim. For example, a parent that paid or facilitated the payment
of ransom for the release of their child, or such persons that pay
ransom for the release of their loved ones, will earn jail term.
The net effect of the above is that a released person, on the
payment of ransom, would arrive into the prosecution hands of
government. Thus, rather than interrogating factors engendering
kidnapping of innocent citizens, what is most important to the
proponent and, by extension, the Senate, is the imposition of jail
terms on those who must have been interested in their freedoms or
the freedom of their loved ones. I am sure that such a victim would
have even been elated in paying the ransom than experiencing the
permanent deprivation of his life or that of his loved one.

I would have expected that the priority would be finding the
solution to the causes of kidnapping in the country, most of which
the senator rightly identified. Factors such as corruption,
unemployment, religion, poverty, indoctrination, peer influence and
frustration were rightly mentioned but, regrettably, the Senate
could not task itself further in thinking out of the box in
propounding prognosis to the factors. Another baffling aspect, as
said above, is the deafening silence by way of concurrence of other
senators, which makes me gasp for breath as to where the country
missed its destiny of glory. How could they have missed this fine
point? How could they not have seen the sterility in the reasoning?
It is really amazing. Is it that the other senators did not read
the bill or could not comprehend or digest it, or simply that they
cared not, or have no cure for the ailment by way of solution? This
approach is simply characteristic of Nigerian rulers who always
seek shortcuts to every challenge. 

In as much as I agree with the rationale behind forestalling the
payment of ransom in terms of its precipitating more kidnappings, I
believe there is a need for balance. Life is much more precious
than any material thing. The whole resources of a nation cannot
resurrect a single dead soul. Would anyone be willing to take a
gamble with his life in such circumstances? I am not in doubt that
the payment of ransom could be an attraction and must be
discouraged. Such, however, is reasonable where there is an
alternative for securing the freedom of the victim. Thus, the
tension between ransom payment and gambling with the release of a
victim ought to be resolved in favour of ransom payment.

This fact is buttressed by the latest experience with the
Greenfield University students that were kidnapped. After waiting
on government and its agencies for weeks without any concrete
action, and after losing five students, the other parents did not
have a choice than to contribute and pay the demanded sum to secure
the release of their children. I am sure any of the parents would
be ready and willing to go to jail for the life of his child. What
is freedom in the face of the trauma of losing one’s child in such
cruel circumstances? The only instances we can begin to advocate
non-payment of ransom, or discouraging same is where the country
has been able to empower the security agencies well enough to be
ahead of the kidnappers and it is just a matter of a little
patience before the men of nefarious business are apprehended.

This remains elusive in our clime, where even some security
officials are part of the perpetrators of this evil. You can now
feel how my heart bled as I listened to the presentation of the
sponsor skipping the interrogation of the solution to the challenge
of kidnapping and arguing in favour of imposition of sentence not
on the perpetrator but on the victim. In the absence of such
competent, capable and available alternative, the argument in
favour of punishing payment of ransom becomes tenuous and
unreasonable. Nobody can be penalized for protecting his life. In
fact, the defence of self-defence will be handy in this regard. You
are permitted in law to defend your life where threatened with
whatever is available to you at that moment.   

By that bill, is the Senate suggesting, as I understand it, that
the victims of kidnapping or their relatives ought to resign to
fate, a fate the state is unable to help? This explains my shock
seeing the bill progressing. Rather than engaging in this futile
exercise, should the Senate not have engaged itself in propounding
enduring solutions to the kidnapping challenge? This is one bill,
which, if slipped into law, will be more honoured in breach than
observance. Let anyone of the senators whose child is kidnapped
take a gamble of risking the life of such child without paying
ransom.

Those children that we fail to look after when they were lacking
during their developmental stages are the ones now taunting us with
death, rape, decapitation and all sorts of indignities today. The
few thousands of naira, as the privileged lot, that we could have
spared to get them educated then, is the millions we are now
offering with pleas to them to spare our lives and our loved ones
that turned out to be victims of their vices. Another strange
statement I heard in the course of the presentation was the flawed
comparison of the Terrorism Act of the United Kingdom and that the
United States of America with the Nigerian act.

As I listened to the senator regale in this distinction, I
marvelled and cried. How do you compare apples with oranges? Is
Nigeria operating in the same milieu with the UK and USA?  Are
the security apparatus in the countries the same and with equal
capacities and capabilities? How concerned and passionate are
Nigerian leaders about the lives of kidnapped Nigerians? Does a
Nigerian life really matter to our so-called rulers? Is life at all
meaningful in the country where an average of 50 lives are lost
daily to avoidable circumstances, incidents or events?

Please, if it is a joke, let us perish the comparison. It lacks
any basis. Let me, therefore, in concluding, urge the immediate
withdrawal of the bill while using the productive time, energy and
resources in finding solutions to the causes of the prevalence of
kidnapping in the country.

Let us not add more misery to the miserable and traumatic life
of Nigerians, particularly victims of kidnapping. The truth remains
that, beyond lacking the capacity to tame the incidents, our
security agencies lack technology and skills to tackle the menace.
The apt proverb is, OOSA BI O LE GBE MI, SE MI BI O TI BA MI (an
oracle that cannot alleviate my suffering should not compound my
woes).

By Dr.Muiz Banire SAN

As citizens of Nigeria were heaving a sigh f relief from the
release of the remaining students of Greenfield University upon the
alleged payment of the huge sum of one N180 million by the parents
as ransom, over 200 pupils of Islamiyya School in Tegina, Rafi
Local Government Area, Niger State, were again carted away like
chattels by kidnappers.

Prior to the release of the remaining 14 students of Greenfield
University, five of them had already been killed by the kidnappers
as a demonstration bait. Two days after, again, a school bus was
hijacked with the attendant in Ondo State. This is just an
illustration of the pattern of daily occurrences in the country.
Undoubtedly, kidnapping is already a menace in Nigeria. It is one
of the few thriving “industries” in the country.

The interesting thing about kidnapping in Nigeria is that it is
not limited to civilians executing it but security agents now
actively participate directly and indirectly in the illicit
business. In some instances, some of the security agents carry out
the act directly on their own, while, in some other instances,
proxies are either used or compromise of state weapons is adopted.
It is in the midst of this general insecurity that Nigerians now
feel disillusioned and dejected. No Nigerian is in doubt about the
onslaught.

Arising from this ugly development, the Senate of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, weeks ago, opted to amend the Terrorism
Prevention Act, 2013, to curtail the menace. I listened with rapt
attention to the presentation of the bill by the proponent, Senator
Francis Ezenwa.  The bill is titled “Terrorism Act (Amendment)
Bill, 2021.” The bill, as moved by the proponent, is essentially
aimed at amending, by way of replacement of Section 14 of the said
Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013, by imposing a sentence of 15 years
jail term on anyone that participates in the payment of ransom in
Nigeria.

While presenting the bill, the sponsor alluded to several causes
of kidnapping in the country in such a manner that one would expect
a conclusion that addresses solutions to the myriad of causes
identified by him. Shockingly, however, the conclusion reached by
him is the need to amend the law to reflect a new regime of
criminalization of ransom payment directly or through proxy by any
victim of kidnapping either directly or through proxy. What was
amazing about the session was that it was meant to be a debate of
the proposal but ended up being a monologue. Apart from the
seconder, there was no further discussion than commitment of the
bill to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. In this wise, let me
state that the Nigerian Senate never ceases to amaze
anyone. 

The thought of criminalizing a helpless situation is not only
weird but the conspiratorial silence that welcomed the presentation
is worrisome. The import of the proposal is to punish a kidnap
victim who paid or facilitated the payment of ransom for his
release; or such a person who paid for the release of a kidnapped
victim. For example, a parent that paid or facilitated the payment
of ransom for the release of their child, or such persons that pay
ransom for the release of their loved ones, will earn jail term.
The net effect of the above is that a released person, on the
payment of ransom, would arrive into the prosecution hands of
government. Thus, rather than interrogating factors engendering
kidnapping of innocent citizens, what is most important to the
proponent and, by extension, the Senate, is the imposition of jail
terms on those who must have been interested in their freedoms or
the freedom of their loved ones. I am sure that such a victim would
have even been elated in paying the ransom than experiencing the
permanent deprivation of his life or that of his loved one.

I would have expected that the priority would be finding the
solution to the causes of kidnapping in the country, most of which
the senator rightly identified. Factors such as corruption,
unemployment, religion, poverty, indoctrination, peer influence and
frustration were rightly mentioned but, regrettably, the Senate
could not task itself further in thinking out of the box in
propounding prognosis to the factors. Another baffling aspect, as
said above, is the deafening silence by way of concurrence of other
senators, which makes me gasp for breath as to where the country
missed its destiny of glory. How could they have missed this fine
point? How could they not have seen the sterility in the reasoning?
It is really amazing. Is it that the other senators did not read
the bill or could not comprehend or digest it, or simply that they
cared not, or have no cure for the ailment by way of solution? This
approach is simply characteristic of Nigerian rulers who always
seek shortcuts to every challenge. 

In as much as I agree with the rationale behind forestalling the
payment of ransom in terms of its precipitating more kidnappings, I
believe there is a need for balance. Life is much more precious
than any material thing. The whole resources of a nation cannot
resurrect a single dead soul. Would anyone be willing to take a
gamble with his life in such circumstances? I am not in doubt that
the payment of ransom could be an attraction and must be
discouraged. Such, however, is reasonable where there is an
alternative for securing the freedom of the victim. Thus, the
tension between ransom payment and gambling with the release of a
victim ought to be resolved in favour of ransom payment.

This fact is buttressed by the latest experience with the
Greenfield University students that were kidnapped. After waiting
on government and its agencies for weeks without any concrete
action, and after losing five students, the other parents did not
have a choice than to contribute and pay the demanded sum to secure
the release of their children. I am sure any of the parents would
be ready and willing to go to jail for the life of his child. What
is freedom in the face of the trauma of losing one’s child in such
cruel circumstances? The only instances we can begin to advocate
non-payment of ransom, or discouraging same is where the country
has been able to empower the security agencies well enough to be
ahead of the kidnappers and it is just a matter of a little
patience before the men of nefarious business are apprehended.

This remains elusive in our clime, where even some security
officials are part of the perpetrators of this evil. You can now
feel how my heart bled as I listened to the presentation of the
sponsor skipping the interrogation of the solution to the challenge
of kidnapping and arguing in favour of imposition of sentence not
on the perpetrator but on the victim. In the absence of such
competent, capable and available alternative, the argument in
favour of punishing payment of ransom becomes tenuous and
unreasonable. Nobody can be penalized for protecting his life. In
fact, the defence of self-defence will be handy in this regard. You
are permitted in law to defend your life where threatened with
whatever is available to you at that moment.   

By that bill, is the Senate suggesting, as I understand it, that
the victims of kidnapping or their relatives ought to resign to
fate, a fate the state is unable to help? This explains my shock
seeing the bill progressing. Rather than engaging in this futile
exercise, should the Senate not have engaged itself in propounding
enduring solutions to the kidnapping challenge? This is one bill,
which, if slipped into law, will be more honoured in breach than
observance. Let anyone of the senators whose child is kidnapped
take a gamble of risking the life of such child without paying
ransom.

Those children that we fail to look after when they were lacking
during their developmental stages are the ones now taunting us with
death, rape, decapitation and all sorts of indignities today. The
few thousands of naira, as the privileged lot, that we could have
spared to get them educated then, is the millions we are now
offering with pleas to them to spare our lives and our loved ones
that turned out to be victims of their vices. Another strange
statement I heard in the course of the presentation was the flawed
comparison of the Terrorism Act of the United Kingdom and that the
United States of America with the Nigerian act.

As I listened to the senator regale in this distinction, I
marvelled and cried. How do you compare apples with oranges? Is
Nigeria operating in the same milieu with the UK and USA?  Are
the security apparatus in the countries the same and with equal
capacities and capabilities? How concerned and passionate are
Nigerian leaders about the lives of kidnapped Nigerians? Does a
Nigerian life really matter to our so-called rulers? Is life at all
meaningful in the country where an average of 50 lives are lost
daily to avoidable circumstances, incidents or events?

Please, if it is a joke, let us perish the comparison. It lacks
any basis. Let me, therefore, in concluding, urge the immediate
withdrawal of the bill while using the productive time, energy and
resources in finding solutions to the causes of the prevalence of
kidnapping in the country.

Let us not add more misery to the miserable and traumatic life
of Nigerians, particularly victims of kidnapping. The truth remains
that, beyond lacking the capacity to tame the incidents, our
security agencies lack technology and skills to tackle the menace.
The apt proverb is, OOSA BI O LE GBE MI, SE MI BI O TI BA MI (an
oracle that cannot alleviate my suffering should not compound my
woes).