Connect with us

society

KIDNAPPED, NEGOTIATED, OR RESCUED?

Published

on

KIDNAPPED, NEGOTIATED, OR RESCUED? By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

KIDNAPPED, NEGOTIATED, OR RESCUED?

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

“The messy politics behind the release of Kebbi’s schoolgirls and why Nigeria’s silence fuels banditry.”

On November 17, gunmen brazenly stormed the Government Girls Comprehensive Senior Secondary School (GGCSS), Maga, in Danko-Wasagu Local Government Area of Kebbi State, killed a school official and whisked away 25 female students. For a week the country waited and then on November 25–26 the girls were reported freed. What should have been a straightforward moment of national relief instead exposed Nigeria’s deepest vulnerabilities: conflicting official narratives, a combustible mix of secrecy and rumor and the unmistakable risk that negotiation as policy will continue to fatten criminal cartels.

The federal government and state authorities insist the girls were rescued through a coordinated security operation. President Bola Tinubu spoke of a successful rescue; Kebbi’s governor, Nasir Idris, declared no ransom was paid and lauded the military, the Department of State Services (DSS) and other agencies for bringing the girls home unharmed. Those are the accounts the state has chosen to burn into the public record.

As almost immediately a competing story re-emerged: circulating video footage and statements attributed to the abductors claim otherwise. In the clips and in commentary that followed, armed men who held the girls are heard saying the students were released because a NEGOTIATED UNDERSTANDING (not a military raid) CONCLUDED the MATTER. One bandit in the footage reportedly mocked government claims of a forceful rescue and told the girls they were being returned “based on peace deals.” If authentic, that footage tells a familiar story: the state insisting on a clean, kinetic narrative while shadow deals with criminal actors are quietly sewn up.

This contradiction matters. It is not a mere semantic skirmish between the rhetoric of rescue and the fact of negotiation. Negotiations and ransom payments change incentives. They transform violent entrepreneurs into providers of “security” and convert abduction into a profitable, repeatable enterprise. Academic and policy studies have documented how ad hoc settlements and clandestine payments enable bandit networks to consolidate territorial footholds and expand targeting strategies. A 2025 DIIS (Danish Institute for International Studies) analysis and other field studies warn that repeated, opaque deals with armed gangs institutionalize impunity and hollow out state authority.

Voices across Nigeria have responded with fury and alarm. Some parliamentarians now openly demand sanctions for officials who negotiate with bandits. Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu has proposed criminal penalties for government officials who engage in ransom negotiations or unstructured amnesty deals through an effort to place legal guardrails around what many believe has become an unofficial marketplace for peace. If adopted, such a law would be an admission that informal bargaining has become frequent enough to warrant formal prohibition.

Civil society and security experts make the same blunt point: paying or tacitly allowing negotiations may save lives in the short term, but it also invites more abductions. Hannatu Pamela Ishaya of the Hannis Foundation memorably warned that ransom payments “empower” kidnappers and encourage repetition — a paradox of mercy that ends up imperilling more children. That observation is not rhetorical; it is borne out by the steady tempo of school kidnappings across the northwest and middle belt — regions where criminal gangs treat abduction as a core revenue stream.

Two immediate consequences flow from the government’s mixed messaging. First, credibility is eroded. When the public receives one version from the presidency and another from footage and eyewitnesses, trust in official institutions suffers. Trust is the fragile currency of state legitimacy; once spent, it is difficult to restore. Second, ambiguity undermines accountability. If deals are cut in shadow, neither legislatures nor oversight bodies can properly scrutinize who authorised payments or why soldiers were allegedly withdrawn from vulnerable outposts shortly before attacks; a charge Kebbi’s governor has demanded the military investigate, till date we’ve not heard any report come back. Nigeria is business as usual.

We must also confront the operational reality: in many rural theatres the security architecture is simply inadequate. Intelligence gaps, poor logistics and shallow troop deployment create conditions in which negotiating becomes a tactical default. That does not excuse covert deals; rather, it underscores the need for a coherent national strategy that combines prevention, prosecution and protection. Researchers who have mapped bandit networks across northwest Nigeria show that without integrated community intelligence, economic alternatives, and credible prosecution, tactical rescues or transactions will not stop the cycle.

So what should Nigeria do now is beyond expressions of relief? First, transparency. If negotiations occurred, the public is entitled to a full accounting: who negotiated, under what authority and what concessions (if any) were made. A blank wall of silence invites speculation, corrodes trust and allows destructive bargains to be normalized. If no ransom was paid and military action achieved the rescue, the security agencies must present verifiable evidence (timing, assets deployed, chain of command) to restore confidence. Either way, concealment is not a policy.

Second, law. The House’s proposal to penalise officials who negotiate with bandits is blunt but necessary if implemented judiciously. The state must remove perverse incentives. Where local governments or individuals have previously paid ransoms, the federal government must step in with legal clarity and victim support, not punishment alone. Criminal prosecutions should target the kingpins and the corrupt enablers who profit from prolonging insecurity.

Third, prevention. Military and policing responses must be married to community resilience: better roads and surveillance, reliable communications in rural areas, community policing that integrates local trackers and credible witnesses, education investments that harden boarding facilities, and economic programmes that shrink the recruitment pool for bandit groups. As scholars note, an exclusively kinetic response is necessary but insufficient. Lasting security requires reducing the economic and social conditions that produce banditry.

Finally, moral clarity. Nigerian leaders must decide whether they will accept a trade in which safety is bought one incident at a time. The alternative is uncomfortable: deny payment, risk lives in the short run and reckon with the political cost; or concede payment and let the market for lives expand. Neither choice is painless. Though continued secrecy and equivocation will only worsen the calculus for future victims.

The return of the Kebbi girls must be celebrated and their welfare prioritised such as medical checks, counselling and swift family reunification are imperative; but the celebration must not mute inquiry. Every rescued child carries the story of how she was taken and how she came back. If those narratives are shaped by statements of both state rescue and bandit negotiation, Nigerians deserve the truth in full. The nation cannot both claim strength and tolerate shadow commerce in human freedom.

If Nigeria hopes to end the steady procession of school abductions, it must start by refusing the convenience of half-truths. RESCUE without ACCOUNTABILITY is a REPRIEVE, not a SOLUTION. Negotiation without oversight is a subsidy to crime. And silence in the face of conflicting accounts is the state’s most expensive currency. The girls are home but let that not be the last chapter. Let it be the moment when POLICY, LAW and COURAGE converge to make sure no more classrooms fall silent.

KIDNAPPED, NEGOTIATED, OR RESCUED?
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

society

A Renewed Momentum: How the Chief of Army Staff is Repositioning the Nigerian Army for Decisive Impact

Published

on

*A Renewed Momentum: How the Chief of Army Staff is Repositioning the Nigerian Army for Decisive Impact*

By Comrade Oladimeji Odeyemi.

 

 

In times of prolonged security challenges, it is easy—almost convenient—for critics to amplify setbacks while ignoring measurable progress. Yet, across Nigeria’s diverse and complex theatres of operation, a different story is steadily unfolding: one of resilience, tactical evolution, and renewed operational effectiveness under the leadership of the Chief of Army Staff, (COAS, Nigerian Army), Lt General Waidi Shaibu.

 

What we are witnessing today is not a media hype or propaganda—it is the outcome of deliberate reforms, improved coordination, and a reinvigorated fighting spirit within the Nigerian Army.

 

*A Clear Shift in Operational Effectiveness*

 

Recent developments across, but not limited to Benue, Plateau, Borno, Yobe, Sokoto, Zamfara, Kogi, Kwara, Edo, and the South-East underscore a critical truth: the Nigerian Army under General Waidi Shaibu is not on the back foot. On the contrary, it is increasingly proactive, intelligence-driven, and responsive.

 

From the successful rescue of kidnapped civilians in Benue, to the interception of armed militias in Plateau, and the neutralisation of insurgents in Borno, the pattern is consistent—swift response, precision engagement, and tangible outcomes.

 

These are not isolated victories. They reflect:

 

– Improved intelligence gathering and utilisation.

 

– Faster troop deployment and mobility.

 

– Enhanced inter-agency collaboration.

 

– Better morale and combat readiness among personnel.

 

Such coordination, especially in asymmetric warfare, does not happen by chance. It is a direct reflection of leadership at the top.

 

*The Chief of Army Staff: Lt General Waidi Shaibu Driving Reform and Results*

 

Since assuming office, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt General Waidi Shaibu has brought a renewed sense of urgency and clarity of purpose to military operations. His leadership style appears anchored on three critical pillars:

 

*1. Operational Aggression with Discipline*

 

Troops are no longer merely reacting—they are taking the fight to criminal elements. Whether dismantling terrorist camps in the North Central states or repelling coordinated attacks in the North-East, or engaging the Unknown Gunmen in the SouthEast, the Nigerian Army is demonstrating initiative and dominance.

 

*2. Intelligence-Led Warfare*

 

Modern conflicts are won as much with information as with firepower. The increasing success in intercepting logistics suppliers, uncovering IEDs, and preempting attacks shows a system that is becoming smarter, not just stronger.

 

*3. Joint Force Synergy*

 

The collaboration between the Army, Air Force, Navy, Police, DSS, and local security groups has significantly improved. Operations in the South Eastern part of the Country and other regions highlight a unified national security architecture—something that has long been advocated but is now visibly taking shape.

 

*Addressing the Culture of Criticism*

 

It must be said plainly: criticism is not inherently wrong in a democracy. However, what is deeply problematic is the pattern of uninformed, selective outrage that ignores context, dismisses progress, and undermines morale.

 

Those who hastily label every security incident as evidence of failure often:

 

– Ignore the complexity of asymmetric warfare.

 

– Overlook the sacrifices of frontline personnel.

 

– Fail to acknowledge the vast geographical and logistical challenges involved.

 

Worse still, some narratives are built on speculation, ethnic bias, or incomplete information—such as prematurely attributing crimes to specific groups without verification.

 

This does not help the nation. It weakens it.

 

*The Reality of the Battlefield*

 

Nigeria is not facing a conventional war. The threats are:

 

– Decentralised.

 

– Embedded within local communities.

 

– Adaptive and unpredictable.

 

From insurgents and bandits to kidnappers and economic saboteurs, the battlefield is fluid. Success, therefore, must be measured not by the absence of incidents, but by the capacity to respond, contain, and degrade threats over time.

 

By this standard, the Nigerian Army is making undeniable progress.

 

*The Human Element: Courage and Sacrifice*

 

Behind every operation report is a human story—soldiers who leave their families behind, who endure harsh terrains, who confront danger daily so that millions of Nigerians can live in relative safety.

 

Some pay the ultimate price.

 

To reduce their efforts to mere statistics or dismiss them outright is not just unfair—it is unjust.

 

*A Call for National Support*

 

The progress being recorded today must be sustained, and that requires more than military effort. It demands:

 

– Public cooperation with security agencies.

 

– Responsible media reporting.

 

– Community vigilance against criminal infiltration

 

– Constructive, informed criticism where necessary.

 

Most importantly, it requires national unity in purpose.

 

*Conclusion: A Force Worthy of Confidence*

 

The Nigerian Army, under the leadership of the Chief of Army Staff, Lt General Waidi Shaibu is demonstrating that with the right direction, commitment, and strategy, meaningful progress is possible—even in the face of complex security challenges.

 

The gains may not always make screaming headlines, but they are real. They are measurable. And they are building momentum.

 

Rather than constant condemnation, what the Armed Forces deserve at this critical time is recognition, encouragement, and unwavering support.

 

Because beyond the noise of criticism lies a simple truth:

these men and women are standing between order and chaos—and they are holding the line.

 

This article was written by Comrade Oladimeji Odeyemi, an entrepreneur and an opinion moulder from Ibadan, Oyo State.

Continue Reading

society

RESPONSIBLE RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE NIGERIAN ARMY

Published

on

RESPONSIBLE RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE NIGERIAN ARMY By Brigadier General D.G. James (Rtd.)

RESPONSIBLE RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE NIGERIAN ARMY

By Brigadier General D.G. James (Rtd.)

 

LAGOS — A recent publication by Sahara Reporters alleging systemic corruption, the creation of “mushroom units,” inflated budgets, and operational sabotage within the Nigerian Army has sparked concern across security and public circles.

RESPONSIBLE RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE NIGERIAN ARMY

By Brigadier General D.G. James (Rtd.)

But a retired senior officer, Brigadier General D.G. James, has pushed back strongly, describing the claims as unsubstantiated, misleading, and damaging to the integrity of an institution that has borne the brunt of Nigeria’s internal security battles for over a decade.

 

Having served for 30 years across the North-East, North-West, and Niger Delta, the retired general said his intervention is not in defence of any individual, but of the institution itself.

 

Questioning Anonymous Claims

At the heart of the controversial report is a single unnamed source described as a “top military strategist.” General James argues that such anonymity, without corroborating evidence, weakens the credibility of the allegations.

“Serious claims about budgets, personnel, and logistics must be backed by verifiable documents, not vague assertions,” he said, challenging the publication to provide concrete proof, including records or sworn statements.

“Mushroom Units” or Operational Necessity?

The report’s claim that under-strength units were created to inflate budgets was also dismissed as a misunderstanding of modern counter-insurgency operations.

 

According to the retired officer, Nigeria’s evolving security threats — from Boko Haram and ISWAP in the North-East to banditry in the North-West and separatist tensions in the South-East, have necessitated the creation of flexible task forces and new formations.

 

“Operating below full strength is not evidence of corruption,” he said. “It reflects battlefield realities , casualties, redeployments, and expansion under pressure.”

 

Payroll and Logistics Allegations

On claims of double-counting personnel for financial gain, General James described the scenario as “logistically implausible,” citing centralized payroll systems tied to biometric verification.

He further noted that accusations of fuel diversion ignore broader structural issues within Nigeria’s budgeting system.

“Funds approved on paper are often not fully released. By the time allocations reach operational units, commanders are forced to manage limited resources,” he explained.

Reaction to Benisheik Reference

General James also condemned the report’s reference to the death of Brigadier General Oseni Braimah during an ISWAP attack in Benisheik, calling it an inappropriate attempt to link battlefield losses to alleged corruption.

“Using the death of a fallen officer to support unverified claims is deeply disrespectful,” he said.

Broader Accountability

While not dismissing the possibility of corruption in defence spending, the retired general emphasized that responsibility cannot be placed solely on the military.
He pointed to the role of the National Assembly in budget approvals and civilian institutions in oversight and prosecution.

“If there are flaws in the system, they are systemic , not exclusive to the armed forces,” he noted.

 

Call for Transparent Investigation

General James called for a thorough and independent investigation into the allegations, urging authorities to rely on verifiable evidence rather than media narratives.

“Let every claim be examined , but fairly, transparently, and without prejudice,” he said.

 

Reaffirming his lifelong loyalty to the military, the retired officer urged Nigerians to approach such reports with caution.
“Our soldiers have made enormous sacrifices in defence of this country. Allegations alone should not overshadow those realities,” he stated.

Continue Reading

society

IGP Closes PMF Commanders’ Training, Pledges Better Welfare, Tactical Capacity

Published

on

IGP Closes PMF Commanders’ Training, Pledges Better Welfare, Tactical Capacity

 

The Inspector-General of Police, IGP Olatunji Rilwan Disu, on Wednesday closed a Squadron Commanders’ Training Programme at the Police Mobile Force (PMF) Training College in Ende-Hills, Nasarawa State, vowing to strengthen leadership and operational effectiveness across the force.

At the ceremony, the IGP inspected training facilities including the simulation ground and shooting range, where he personally took part in tactical exercises. He told cadets of the Nigeria Police Academy undergoing training at the college to remain disciplined and focused, stressing that their effectiveness on the field would depend on the quality of their training.

“Resilience, professionalism, and strict adherence to human rights principles must guide your conduct,” Disu said.

Addressing the graduating squadron commanders, he urged them to apply their newly acquired skills in leadership, operational discipline, and tactical efficiency. He described the PMF as a “highly disciplined, responsive, and reliable tactical arm” of the Nigeria Police Force.

The IGP further reaffirmed his commitment to improving officers’ welfare and boosting operational capacity, assuring that formations would be adequately equipped to tackle evolving security challenges nationwide.

 

IGP Closes PMF Commanders’ Training, Pledges Better Welfare, Tactical Capacity

Continue Reading

Cover Of The Week

Trending