By Cosmas Omegoh (Lagos), George Onyejiuwa (Owerri), Seye Ojo (Ibadan), and John Adams (Minna)
The Senate has continued to receive bashing for the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill, 2022 it passed into law on April 27.
The said law makes it an offence for kidnapped victims or their relatives to pay ransom to their abductors.
The Senate claimed that the law will “prevent terrorist groups from laundering money.”
Before its passage, the bill received an overwhelming support from the senators.
The Senate President, Ahmad Lawan believes that the new law can “turn around not only the security situation in Nigeria, but even the economic fortunes of our country.”
But Nigerians – activists, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), socio-cultural organisations, among others – have continued to see things differently.
In their latest reactions, a cross section of lawyers, former legislators and social commentators said that the law is uncalled for.
Perspectives to the law
Providing an insight, a lawyer, Dennis Azeke, noted that “by the time you keep throwing money at kidnappers, the ill will continue to blossom. It becomes a bigger industry for the criminals. Worldwide, responsible countries have known this. So, some have legislated on it.
“The US has the executive order discouraging payment of ransom.
“But the government still uses its agencies like the FBI to find a way to negotiate with terrorists and meet their demands – especially when they cannot find a way to rescue their kidnapped citizens, whether they are held by kidnappers for money or for political reasons.
“But in our case, the idea is to make payment of ransom non-lucrative for the kidnappers.
“But practically, is it workable in the Nigerian set up? The question again is do we have the instrumentality to enforce the law we are talking about? The answer is no.
“For those in government, when their top persons are kidnapped, they still use third parties to pay ransom.”
Spirit and morality of law
Meanwhile, Azeke and Yusufu Alli (SAN) have been reflecting on the morality or otherwise of the law.
According to Azeke, “the idea of the law is that kidnapping is illegal and not permissible.
“Therefore, we cannot be talking about morality here.”
He admitted that law and morality can meet and can also diverge. “But what is moral, might be legal, and what is legal might not be moral.”
In his contention, Mr Alli noted that “there is nothing moral or immoral about the amended law.”
To him, “it is simply a law.”
He, however, expressed concern that the Senate had enacted a law that is non-implementable, cautioning that it is against the spirit of the law to have legislation “that will be hard to implement.”
To buttress his point, he asked: “If someone is kidnapped, how do you monitor that ransom has been paid before the individual is released?”
Azeke equally shared Alli’s view by declaring: “Yes, the law is good. But is it implementable; does it make any impact? The answer is no – because we have weak institutions, weak security agencies, weak judiciary agency – to enforce such a law.”
He also raised other fears. “Now, when those who are to arrest the bandits – as we are hearing recently – are part of the terrorists helping them to push the kidnapping agenda, what faith do we have in those we are relying on to help push this law?”
Ex-NASS members dismiss law
Former of House of Representatives member, Hon. Uche Onyeaguocha, said that the law is simply not enforceable.
He is of the view that the government had failed to put measures in place to secure the release of kidnapped victims.
“It is not whether the law is moral or not. The law is not enforceable especially in a country where the government has collapsed.
“How can such a law be enforced when the state is incapable of providing security for its citizens? What have they put in place to secure the release of kidnapped victims?”
Not done he added: “Look at a situation where you cannot secure the release of kidnapped victims who have been held for years, and you turn around to pass a law that now, nobody should pay ransom to kidnappers?”
Onyeaguocha who is the erstwhile Secretary to the Imo State Government under the administration of Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha also said: “It is, therefore, not the business of the government to bother any family that has the means and ways to secure the release of their kidnapped relatives, especially where the government has (been) literally ineffective and inefficient.
“We have a failed system; so Nigerians are fending for themselves and taking care of their security.
“Every individual today is almost a local government (of their own). You build your own house; you provide your own water, electricity and even road to your house. So, tell me, what else does the government do? They are not building schools; they are not building hospitals. Who are they to pass such law?”
Also, Bosun Oladele, a former House member who represented Irepo/Olorunsogo/Orelope Federal Constituency in Oyo State between 2015 and 2019, welcomed the amendment.
However, Oladele, a former Commissioner for Information in Oyo State, noted that “the payment of ransom has its advantages and its disadvantages.
According to him, there is nothing bad at all in making any law for the good of the people.
“But one challenge we always have, especially in Nigeria is the implementation and enforcement of such a law.
“Most of the people that have been kidnapped so far – except some – ransom had been the most potent solution for the release of such persons.
“If families and associates will not pay ransom again, it will mean that technology has to be deployed to the highest level to make it impossible for them not to be kidnapped.
“Until that is done, it will be very difficult to criminalise payment of ransom.
“But the law is good because any law that is made will not just take care of the present, it will also take care of the future. So, as we are working on our security system, and technology for security purposes, we should also make laws that will assist the enforcement of security.”
Unpopular law dead on arrival
Meanwhile, a former Commissioner for Information and Culture in Niger State, and chieftain of the All Progressive Congress (APC), Jonathan Vatsa, has lambasted the Senate for the passage of the bill, describing it as “dead on arrival.”
“This is yet another very unpopular bill like the hate speech bill which died even before it was conceived.
“You don’t sit in an air-conditioned office and pass a law that has no meaning to Nigerians whose relations are languishing in kidnappers’ den,” he said.
The former publicity secretary of the APC in Niger State pointed out that it is highly regrettable that the senators who are the representatives of the Nigerian people could be thinking differently from what Nigerians really want from them, wondering whether they will not pay the ransom if their relations are kidnapped today.
He asked: “Since Nigerians are being kidnapped, how many of them have the security agents rescued? The situation has been either you pay or you lose your relations because nobody will rescue them and our senators know this too well.
“People are being kidnapped on the highways, and in their homes without any resistance from the security agents, and Nigerians are aware of this. And now, you are bringing a law that they should not pay ransom to secure the release of their loved ones?”
To underline his argument, he recalled that “today, we have over 2,000 Nigerians in captivity, including students and new born babies born in kidnappers’ den few days ago. Yet the government is only there issuing directives to security agents without any action.
“The victims of the Abuja-Kaduna train attack have spent over one month in the kidnappers’ den within Nigerian territory, yet, there is no effort to secure their release by the government, and yet they are here telling Nigerians that payment of ransom is prohibited.”
Weighing in on the law, ace journalist and public affairs commentator, Kanayo Esinulo, described it as “terrible.”
“I have never seen such level of nonsensical idiocy before.
“The Senate should rather stop the killings, the kidnapping, the banditry – at source. Not when my relative is held, and there is the resource to bail him out. Or I can borrow to do that, and you say oo, don’t borrow, you will be offending the law. That is abominable. That is questionable,” he fumed.
He lamented that the action of those in government “has destroyed Nigeria, declaring: “The country is on the ground; we are just pretending.”
Law not what Nigerians want
Vasta told our correspondent that the Senate ought to know that the amended law is not what Nigerians want as part of their contributions to the fight against the current spate of insecurity in the country.
“How many of our senators, especially those of them from the North can confidently go to their constituencies even with security?
“Why can’t they pass a bill making kidnapping itself a capital punishment? That is when Nigerians will take them seriously.
“You don’t fight a problem without addressing its root cause.
“This is one bill that will have no meaning to Nigerians; in fact, they should not even count it among the bills passed by this 9th Senate.”
What amended law portends
According to Esinulo, criminalising people for paying ransom clearly suggests that Nigeria is in deep crisis.
“What it means is that the country is in chaos; there is anarchy in the land; and I think some people are trying to rope all of us into this.
“I have never seen this level of funny thinking before. Such law, to say the least, lacks deep thinking. It shows that the leadership of Nigeria does not reflect the realities on the ground. It is low,” he argued.
He expressed fear that anarchy, which is clearly ruling the land at the moment, is not being addressed scientifically.
“Now, look at this. How do you rehabilitate and integrate a Boko Haram or bandit of yesterday into the army? Someone who only three days ago was fighting the army he is being integrated into it? It shows you the level of thinking of the Nigerian political leadership. It shows you that we have lost everything.
“Whether you are going to rehabilitate those that have been released or you are going to arrest those that produced the funds that facilitated those that have been released, one thing is clear to me as a Nigerian, as a person, a journalist: there should be a total reorganisation or total abandonment of the present 1999 Constitution.
“The fundamental problem of Nigeria is not the payment of ransom. It is not the enactment of a law in the Senate against those who pay ransom or the consequences that await those who pay. No! The problem with Nigeria starts and ends with the present constitution written by a certain Prof Angulu, which is not people-orientated – which did not attract the participation of the people.
“It was the fault of retired General Abdulsalami who fetched Angulu, and gave him some pieces of paper to write a constitution and say ‘we the people of Nigeria,’ when did we do that?
“There is the fundamental question of who will be arrested after paying ransom or people who will be held responsible for banditry. It is a matter that could be debated till the end of time.
“The most problematic situation in Nigerian facing and demanding the attention of patriots and not pretenders is the total abrogation of the present constitution.”
For Alli, the amended law “shows that as a matter of fact, if we have been up and doing, and our security system up to the task, we should not be talking about paying ransom to kidnappers.
“By paying ransom, we are elevating kidnapping to a trade which is a big shame. But we have started. So, I think we should first of all stem the occurrence of kidnapping, and by the time it is no longer becoming rampant, we can now begin to talk about discouraging ransom payment. And by so doing, the actors will now know that it is no longer financially viable.”
What Senate should have done
Hon. Onyeaguocha is of the view that the Senate “should have first put measures in place so that whatever is fuelling the insecurity is tackled by creating jobs and providing the security agents starting with the police with the necessary equipment and training.”
Alli equally reasoned that “rather than dissipating energy on this, Senate should have focused its attention on how to secure lives and property by ensuring that our security has what it takes to tackle the myriad of challenges they have.”
Then he added: “I think when that bill becomes law, it will be interesting to see how it will be enforced.”
Toeing the same line, Azeke believes the Senate did not do justice to the law.
“What the Senate should have done,” he insisted, “is to find a way of advising on strengthening our security agencies.
“In fact, before you pass this kind of legislation, there should have been a stakeholders’ meeting at which participants would proffer advice.”
He reasoned that it ought to have been appropriate to give less punishment to the ransom giver, saying: “You can criminalise ransom payment, but recommend lesser punishment for the giver lesser. Punishment for persons who demanded money and their associates should be stricter.
“Besides, the Senate should have passed appropriate laws on how the institutions should he strengthened. Because the same institution you are relying on are the front runners in this criminality going on in the country.”
Ordinary man and the law
Azeke expressed fear that “because the ordinary man on the streets does not have faith in our institutions, the judiciary system, the security agencies, will go ahead and do what they want to do.
“It is the same security agencies that you want to rely on that will encourage them to go ahead and do what they want to do. So, people will not give attention to such law because they know that by doing so, they will lose their loved ones. Their lives will be in grave danger. So, they will sort things out if they have money.”