When, last December, the federal government officially classified kidnappers and violent armed groups as terrorists, the aim was in part, to make for proper identification of these groups and firm up the war against terrorism.
By consigning the era of ambiguous nomenclature ascribed to all manner of non-state actors to the dust bin of history, these criminals will no longer be treated as ordinary suspects as they face the full weight of counterterrorism. That was the level of positive sentiments evoked when the Minister of Information, Mohammed Idris declared, ‘Now the era of ambiguous nomenclature is over. If you terrorise our people, whether you are a group or you are an individual, you are a terrorist and will be classified as such. There is no name hiding under this again’.
Though the classifications neither named nor proscribe any of the known groups hiding under confusing garbs to commit heinous crimes, it struck as a positive step in scaling up counterterrorism operations in the country. Before then, many of these groups had been treated as ordinary criminals even as there is no visible dividing line between their criminal escapades and acts of terrorism.
This has tended to fuel suspicions of preferential treatment and reluctance on the part of the government to serious commitment to the prosecution of the war. Curiously, six months after the classification, the pronouncement is yet to go beyond the confines of the very office it was made.
Not only have such nomenclatures continued to dominate and define discussions, there appears official reluctance to identify and treat many of the infractions that have occurred since then as serious acts of terrorism. Not surprisingly, this mind frame has begun to impact very negatively on the handling of emerging acts of terrorism.
Abductors of more than 43 pupils and teachers from three schools in the Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State have been variously described as bandits, gunmen and kidnappers. Most of the references to the attackers have continued to identify them along these criminal tendencies even when they decapitated an innocent teacher for reasons that satisfy their bestial instincts.
There are hardly any references to them as terrorists. Neither does the classification define the responses of security agencies to the challenge.
Even then, the abductors’ posturing give further fillip to their classification as terrorists. These are manifest in their demands and conditions for the release of the captives. But they also expose the weaknesses between policy pronouncement and their implementation.
Though the abductors later compelled one of the kidnapped teachers to recant some of their demands, the reason for that damage control is not hard to fathom.
Originally, they had allegedly demanded the release of two detained terrorist commanders, payment of ransom, two Hilux vehicles and the implementation of Sharia law in Oyo State.
The names of the two commanders they seek their release were given as, Mahmud Usman, also known as Abu Bara’a or Abass Mukhtar and his deputy, Abubakar Abba, alias Isah Adam or Mahmud AL-Nigeri. They are said to be leaders of Jama’atu Ansarui Muslimeena Fii Bilaadis Sudan also known as Ansaru. It is a breakaway faction of Boko Haram.
The commanders who are said to be linked to many terrorism acts across the country were arrested between May and July last year. They are currently standing trial on terrorism charges.
Major General Abubakar Rabe (Rtd) and his wife were abducted while travelling to Katsina by those described as bandits. In a video circulated in the social media, the couple relayed the demands of their captures to include the release of three detained fighters and return of livestock allegedly seized during security operations. Rabe’s wife who appealed for help in Hausa language said the release of the fighters arrested in Jikamshi and Kano would facilitate their freedom.
There are common strands in the two incidents. The first is the general reference to the perpetrators of the abductions as bandits, gunmen and kidnappers. The second common denominator lies in the nature of demands for the release of their victim. They are asking for the release of detained terrorism commanders, fighters as well as the establishment of Sharia law in Oyo State in particular.
Of no less significance is the demand by Rabe’s abductors for the return of unidentified livestock said to have been seized by the security agencies during operations. These demands give out the ideological and occupational leanings of those involved in the two kidnapping incidents. They also reinforce the justification by the federal government in classifying all such groups as terrorists.
Beyond this, the demands expose the degenerate level the country has descended on account of metastasizing insecurity. The impression one gets from the demand for the release of arrested terrorism commanders, is that of intense competition for power between the terrorists and the government. The terrorists speak from positions of strength and are prepared to harm their victims if the authorities fail to heed their demands. That is how bad the situation has become.
It is a show of power-competition for influence and authority. It is a statement of strength. If the government has the powers to smoke them out from their hiding places and rescue the victims, the abductors will be scared stiff to dare their authorities. But they are so safe and secure in their comfort zones. That is what you get, when non-state actors compete intensely with the government for spheres of influence and control.
The purpose of the new video denying their earlier demands is not lost on anyone. It was a logical outcome of the opprobrium and avalanche of condemnations that trailed the demand for institutionalizing Sharia law in Oyo State and release of detained Boko Haram commanders. Their enablers saw belatedly that those demands gave out who they are and had to issue a rebuttal. Nobody is deceived!
But implicit in the two demands are the political, ideological and religious promptings of the abductors. Not only are those they are rooting for their release Boko Haram commanders, weird religious ideology is the propelling imperative of Boko Haram insurgency.
Does that leave anyone in doubt about those responsible for the Oyo school abductions? Yet, the authorities have had to address them as gunmen, bandits and kidnappers. So what happened to the classification of these groups as terrorists that should have the full force of counter terrorism mounted against them?
Is it surprising that the old approach to tackling the malfeasance- negotiations and ransom payment have continued to dominate discussions in the last three weeks of the victims’ captivity? That is the challenge that follows pronouncements that fail to translate into concrete actions.
The occupational leaning of the abductors of Rabe and his wife could also be decoded from their demand for the release of livestock seized from them during security operations. They are herdsmen. But they are also demanding for the release of three arrested fighters. Does that say something also?
It is time the authorities came to terms with the realities of the cascading insecurity. The threat of ‘A Bandits’ Republic’ which this column cautioned against in March 2021 is becoming a foreboding reality from the turn of events in Oyo State. It is a national security emergency requiring new approaches to fully re-establish the authority of the state over its constituents.