“Every time you negotiate with a terrorist, you become an accomplice” – Israeli Official, 1970s (VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS p 244)

Not negotiating with terrorists had been Israel’s official policy since the 1970s when several terrorist groups targeted its citizens, airlines, businesses etc. The State Security apparatus, MOSSAD, had always been able to pull off dramatic rescues and to eliminate the attackers. The capability is still there. Indeed, MOSSAD has created the reputation that, given sufficient time, it will eventually rescue all hostages – wherever they might be held.

However, the current war in Gaza has forced even Israel to bend the rules. There were so many hostages captured and kept in so many locations that the escapades of the past could not be repeated; and pressure was building at home and abroad for the victims to be brought home. Israel now finds itself negotiating with people it regards as terrorists. Nigerians at the moment are faced with a vital national decision with respect to the new set of school children captured and ransom being demanded.

 TO BE, OR NOT TO BE? THAT IS THE QUESTION

That question was posed by William Shakespeare, 1564-1616. The late Fela Anikulapo, the philosopher king of music, in his life time, released a song titled ‘Simple Yes or No’. Indeed, most of the countless decisions we all make fall into the category of those whose consequences are not significant. You have some time on your hands; and you have to choose whether to go out or not. Almost invariably, it matters very little what you do. For some of us, however, we are occasionally confronted with two options – both of which we know in advance will result in disastrous repercussions. We cannot avoid taking a position; neither can we avert the unpleasant outcome. It is always a gut-wrenching decision to make – especially when lives are at stake.

The entire nation is confronted with this dilemma; and we must all make it together. I am aware that Tinubu has announced that “not a dime will be paid by government for ransom”. To me, that represents the opening statement in the negotiations and settlement. The same Tinubu ordered the Nigeria-Niger borders closed. Niger did not beg him to re-open the borders. Bluffing is allowed under such circumstances; it might not be his final position.

Banditry and kidnapping did not start in the North in our recent history since 1999. Militants of the Niger Delta started it; they were met with Joint Task Force, JTF, federal might, which failed to solve the problem despite losses of lives and properties destroyed. Not negotiating with terrorists was Federal Government policy under Obasanjo. President Yar’Adua mounted the saddle and called the troops back. Amnesty, which was perhaps the biggest ransom ever paid by Nigeria, brought relative peace and sanity to the region.

Boko Haram, BH, started as something which could be terminated by “Police Action” – to borrow General Gowon’s words when the Nigerian Civil War began. Just as the FG underestimated the enormity of the security threat in 1967, the Yar’Adua/Jonathan governments, 2009-2012, failed in their assessment of the monumental danger Boko Haram posed to the corporate existence of Nigeria. Until the abduction of Chibok girls, followed by widespread arson, homicides and kidnappings across the Northeast, BH was just a bloody nuisance that would be crushed with the minimum effort. Yar’Adua died without finding out how deadly wrong he was.

Jonathan is a living witness to the disasters governments can create when they forget the old adage that says “a stitch in time saves nine”. The lion cub newly born is as cute as any other cat; and can be kept as a pet. In six years time, it becomes another predator – ready to kill its owner. BH became a monstrous terrorist organisation right under the eyes of government. As usual in Nigeria, a national calamity was soon politicised and turned into an ethnic as well as a religious disagreement nationwide.

BH members were Northerners and Muslims; the FG was headed by a Southerner and Christian. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the victims were Northerners and Muslims, BH members were protected by their communities against government forces. Many acted as informants and some of the soldiers were disloyal. Otherwise, how else can one explain the failure to drive BH out of Sambisa for over 14 years by the Nigerian forces when unarmed civilians went in and out of the forest daily!!

The period 2015 to 2023 multiplied our list of terrorist groups. President Yar’Adua was a Fulani, Muslim, Northerner, but under him, there was no increase in the number of terrorist groups. The year 2016 marked a more deadly change in the history of terrorism in Nigeria. The rape of Agatu by herdsmen in March of that year was the first time over 100 Nigerians would be slaughtered by gunmen in Nigeria since the Civil War. Official reaction to the genocide also represented the first time such conduct would enjoy immunity from arrest and prosecution. The emergence of herdsmen, killing, abducting and claiming ransom marked a turning point in hostage taking for money. Soon, several other armed groups stepped forward – after finding out how more profitable snatching people, especially kids, than engaging in any honest business imaginable. Today, kidnapping people is Nigeria’s fastest growing business sector. The returns on investment – usually a worthless life – are astonishing. And, to make the venture more attractive for the dare-devils, most people willingly pay the ransom; and even thank the abductors when they release the victims brutalised but alive. Poor families, existing on the edge of destitution, still struggle to pay. That is absolute power corrupting absolutely.

 IS PAYING RANSOM NOW AN OFFER WE CANNOT REFUSE?

“I will make you an offer you cannot refuse” – US Mafia Boss, 1972.

The story was told before. A Chinese shop owner in Brooklyn, New York, USA, had patiently built up his business over several years until it became highly popular and profitable. Then the local Mafia group decided to acquire it as a front to launder their illegal revenue from several crimes. They sent two of their hoodlums to the shopkeeper with an offer – which was refused. The Boss moved in and repeated the same offer – adding, “I am making you an offer you cannot refuse.” To drive home his point, he took out his revolver and scattered shots on the most expensive wines on the shelves. He sent the last shot flying very close to the shop owner’s head. “Are you still refusing”? The poor man meekly signed the contract; accepted the cash offered and walked out of the store. Many of those who refused have been murdered or had their shops destroyed by the gang.

All Nigerians, irrespective of where we live, are now being made offers which test our individual and collective wills about whether to refuse the ransom demands now frequently made or not. Former Governors Masari and Matawalle of Katsina and Zamfara States respectively have experimented with payment and refusal at different times. None of those two approaches worked. Matawalle once announced that he carried N900 million to bandits in the forests of Zamfara; Masari did not announce how much he sacrificed to appease these heartless men. The result was the same. Kidnapping, killings and destruction continued unabated. El-Rufai, as Governor of Kaduna State, tried selective appeasement – he went after only the Fulani herdsmen with government money and turned the state into the hell on earth that it is now. Perhaps, it is some sort of divine justice that the nation now has to grapple with what to do about over 200 kids kidnapped in Kaduna State. The stakes are extremely high.

President Tinubu has taken a stand – his government will not pay. Several questions arise immediately. Would he have made the same decision if his children were among the hostages? How will he feel if the decision to refuse paying ransom results in the slaughter of all the kids; given the other principle that governments are instituted to protect the lives of the all the people? Meanwhile, several Northern leaders have canvassed for negotiating with the kidnappers and paying the ransom agreed. They also have questions to answer.

Will payment not amount to capitulation of government to terrorists; and will that measure not induce more kidnapping? For how long must government pay kidnappers? Does it matter how many people are kidnapped for ransom to be paid? Would the Northern leaders have taken the same position if the kids were snatched in Abia or Ekiti State? Most importantly, what should happen if after receiving the money, the bandits refuse to release the victims or even kill them?

Certainly, there are several more questions that can be asked on this matter. The few issues raised are only designed to encourage all of us to consider this issue with very little or no political considerations. When the APC was harassing Jonathan for failing to rescue Chibok girls; when Lai Mohammed repeatedly asked the former President to resign on account of it, it never occurred to him that the man who brought him to political limelight will be in the same situation as GEJ. That is at least one lesson we should learn. Now, a decision has to be made (if it has not been made by the time you read this article); whether to pay the ransom or not.

I strongly believe we should pay and hope the kids are released. I will definitely raise the funds if my children were among them. We can deal with the bandits later. JUST SAVE THE CHILDREN FIRST.