Negotiating with Bandits? A Critical Look at Nigeria’s Security Strategy

The recent release of the 24 Kebbi schoolgirls kidnapped by bandits has, understandably, been met with relief. President Tinubu’s expression of relief mirrors the sentiment across the nation. Yet, the method of their release – reportedly involving government negotiation with the kidnappers – has sparked debate, reigniting questions about Nigeria’s approach to tackling insecurity.

Rufai Oseni, a well-known journalist, vocalized a concern shared by many: the seeming contradiction of negotiating with violent actors while simultaneously suppressing separatist movements. He points to the imprisonment of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), for inciting violence, contrasting it with the government’s willingness to parley with bandits. Is this a double standard? It’s a valid question.

Oseni’s pointed commentary highlights a central tension. Should a sovereign government engage in dialogue with criminals who use violence and abduction as leverage? Shouldn’t the priority be apprehension and prosecution, thereby demonstrating the state’s monopoly on force? The optics, certainly, are not ideal. It gives the impression that violence pays, potentially emboldening future criminal acts.

Falz, the Nigerian rapper and activist, raised a similar point regarding the release of abducted church members in Kwara State. His criticism stems from the apparent failure to apprehend the perpetrators. Freeing victims is crucial, definitely, but if the kidnappers walk free, the cycle of violence continues unchecked.

Bayo Onanuga, a presidential spokesperson, attempted to clarify the government’s position. He explained that security forces must exercise caution to avoid harming civilians during operations. This is understandable, especially in densely populated areas where bandits might operate. Collateral damage is unacceptable. Still, this explanation begs another question: does the need for caution necessitate negotiation rather than strategic and well-planned tactical operations designed to minimize civilian risk while apprehending criminals?

From my observations, this situation highlights a larger, more complex problem. Nigeria faces a multi-faceted security crisis. Banditry, insurgency, and separatist movements each present unique challenges. A “one-size-fits-all” solution is unlikely to succeed. It’s worth noting that the government’s approach to each threat has differed.

The Niger Delta militancy, for instance, saw a combination of amnesty programs, development initiatives, and targeted military operations. The Boko Haram insurgency has been met primarily with military force, though this has yielded mixed results and has prompted discussion of alternative strategies. Each strategy carries its own set of risks and rewards.

This challenge requires acknowledging that negotiation, while unpalatable to some, might be a pragmatic option in certain circumstances. Perhaps intelligence gathering suggests a high risk of civilian casualties during a military operation. Perhaps negotiation offers the quickest path to securing the victims’ release. It’s easy to criticize from afar, but those in positions of authority often must make difficult decisions with limited information and under immense pressure.

Yet, the lack of transparency surrounding these negotiations fuels public distrust. When the government negotiates with bandits, the public deserves to know the terms of the agreement. What concessions are being made? What assurances are being given? Without transparency, it is difficult to assess whether the benefits of negotiation outweigh the potential costs.

It’s also worth considering the long-term consequences of such negotiations. Do they inadvertently legitimize these criminal groups? Do they create a perverse incentive for others to engage in similar activities? These are not easy questions to answer, but they are essential to consider when formulating a comprehensive security strategy.

To that end, Nigeria needs a more holistic approach. This includes not only military and law enforcement responses but also addressing the root causes of insecurity. These include poverty, unemployment, lack of education, and social inequality. It also involves strengthening governance, improving transparency, and building trust between the government and the people.

The government should also invest more in intelligence gathering and analysis. Understanding the motivations, structures, and networks of these criminal groups is crucial for developing effective strategies to counter them. The use of technology, such as drones and surveillance equipment, can also help to improve situational awareness and reduce the risk to security forces and civilians.

Given these facts, President Tinubu’s administration faces a difficult balancing act. Protecting citizens is paramount. At the same time, the government must uphold the rule of law and avoid creating perverse incentives for criminal activity. This requires a nuanced approach that combines firmness with flexibility, and strength with diplomacy.

Still, the government’s communication strategy needs improvement. Explaining the rationale behind its actions, even when unpopular, can help to build public trust and support. Transparency is key. Nigeria’s security challenges won’t vanish overnight. But with a clear vision, a comprehensive strategy, and open communication, the country can make progress toward a safer and more secure future.

Read Original

Keywords: Nigeria security strategy, Bandit negotiations, Kebbi schoolgirls release, Nnamdi Kanu imprisonment, Rufai Oseni criticism, Falz Kwara abduction, Boko Haram insurgency, Nigeria insecurity root causes