By Maxwell Omorodion
I have, before now, been watching with detached interest the issues surrounding the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Bill, 2021 before the Senate. I had thought that the dust being raised over a certain provision in the bill would fizzle out sooner or later. But my expectations have been belied by the continuing red herring over an issue that ought not task our brains as much as it is doing. So far, my overall impression is that the sponsor of the bill, Senator Ezenwa Francis Onyewuchi ( PDP Imo State), and the entire Senate is being misunderstood over the matter. As a matter of fact, the whole sense which the bill conveys is being misunderstood or glossed over. It is for this reason that I have decided to join issues with all concerned with a view to throwing further light on an issue whose real essence has been obfuscated.
Even though the bill has a number of interesting aspects, the provision that is raising all the dust borders on the penalty prescribed by those who pay ransom to kidnappers or abductors. The provision reads thus: “ Anyone who transfers funds, makes payment or colludes with an abductor, kidnapper or terrorist to receive any ransom for the release of any person who has been wrongfully confined, imprisoned or kidnapped is guilty of a felony and is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years”. This is the crux of the matter. That is the provision that has got tongues wagging. Unfortunately, most of the interjections, rather than clear the fog of misunderstanding, have instead, added to the confusion.
Let us get it straight. The bill is not in any way transferring the bulk of the punishment to the person paying ransom instead of the criminal who abducts or kidnaps. Even though the bill reserves life imprisonment for the abductor or terrorist, some still believe that the culprit who pays ransom should not be held liable in any way. This reasoning misses the point that the proposed law is making. We must appreciate the fact that the sponsor of the bill carried out in-depth research before coming up with the proposal. He looked at what obtains in other lands across the Americas, Europe and even in parts of Africa. Findings in those climes show that kidnapping becomes unattractive once the victim refuses to pay ransom. A kidnapper or abductor who gets no ransom after all the trouble he passed through in the course of abduction is likely to be discouraged from further engagement in the act. We must underline the fact that ransom payment is like toeing the line of least resistance in a matter. It is the easy way out. Those who easily resort to ransom payment have, by their action, rendered the police and other law enforcement agencies redundant. It is the duty of the police and the Department of State Services, among other law enforcement agencies, to deal with crime and criminality. It is their statutory responsibility . The ideal thing to do therefore is to allow them to do their job. When kidnapping or abduction takes place, it is the responsibility of the police and other law enforcement agencies to wade into the matter and deal with it appropriately.
But when we resort to quick ransom payment without allowing state authorities to act accordingly, we become part of the problem. Quick resort to ransom payment is not only a disservice to relevant authority charged with crime prevention and control, it is a danger to society. The practice endangers lives. When one pays ransom and the other does not pay, the life of the recalcitrant one becomes exposed to risk. What works is for all concerned to reject ransom payment as an option.
Sometimes people usually run away with the impression that those who refuse to pay ransom risk the life of the person being held. But that is a very simplistic way of looking at the matter. We must understand that the mission or objective of the kidnapper is not to take life. He gains nothing when he kills his victim. Those who want to shed blood do not demand for ransom. They finish off with the victim once apprehended or accosted. But the kidnapper has a different mission. Our responsibility therefore as citizens is to frustrate that self-serving objective of the kidnapper by refusing to part with our money in the name of ransom payment. Thus, if the bill prescribes that ransom payment should be penalized, it is not an attempt to punish the victim of abduction. It only aims at encouraging him to play according to the rules. Part of that rule is that we must allow law enforcement agencies to take up such matters rather than our usual cheap and quick resort to ransom payment. Interestingly, the bill does not just stop with the criminal and his victim. It places enormous burden on government. It tasks government to build strong institutions that will have the capacity and wherewithal to deal with crimes such as terrorism, abduction or kidnapping. Laws which seek to punish crime must be enforced. The authorities whose responsibility it is to enforce the laws must be equipped and motivated to do their job. The citizens are also expected to assist them in the discharge of their functions by providing information rather than pulling the rug off their feet. Beyond these, government is expected to create the enabling environment that will make crime unattractive. The youth must be given jobs. A gainfully employed population is not likely to resort to crime. To this end, government is further enjoined to address the issue of poverty. Strategic poverty reduction programmes should be instituted . That way, people will become less mischievous and evil in their thinking.
I have taken a bit of time to make these clarifications because I see a lot of merit in the bill. The problem is that people have not read between the lines or tasked their imagination to see how this bill will change our landscape in terms of crime reduction. But I am hardly surprised at the misinterpretations. Most Nigerians are not rigorous in their thinking. They are impatient with anything that requires logical scrutiny. That is why we have a situation where even the educated among us have failed to appreciate the merit of this bill. But we will not let this widespread ignorance take roots. We must encourage our people to be reflective and rational before rushing into conclusions. Our Senate, no doubt, has men and women of learning and intellect. It is reassuring that they are not being discouraged by the shallow arguments that have pervaded the air. I invite everyone interested in this bill to apply some circumspection. Understand the sense and logic of the provision which criminalizes ransom payment. That provision may sound off-putting if we do not digest it well enough. But if we do, we will, sooner or later, discover that it will serve our collective purpose. I vote for this bill and urge my countrymen and women to give it a chance.
Omorodion writes from Lagos