By Oto’ Drama, PhD
THE optics were supposed to be about cooperation. This week, as Jonathan Burke, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing, touched down in Abuja to discuss disrupting illicit financial flows, a shadow fell over the proceedings. While the United States and Nigeria publicly reaffirmed their commitment to “starving” extremists of resources, a bombshell investigation by Agence France-Presse (AFP) suggested that the Nigerian state may have just provided its own executioners with a multi-billion naira lifeline.
At the center of this controversy is the release of over 230 pupils and staff from St. Mary’s Catholic School in Niger State. While the return of children is a cause for national relief, the reported price tag—a staggering N10 billion ($7 million) ransom and the release of two high-ranking Boko Haram commanders—paints a chilling portrait of a state in retreat.
The Phenomenon of Negative Empowerment
In the academic rigor of War Studies and Counter-terrorism, this transaction is a textbook case of “Negative Empowerment.” The concept is simple but devastating: by paying ransoms to secure short-term peace, a state inadvertently provides the insurgency with the tools for long-term dominance.
Terrorists of the caliber of Boko Haram and ISWAP do not view ransom as a gesture of goodwill; they view it as a lucrative revenue stream. They do not “repent.” Instead, every billion naira delivered by helicopter to strongholds like Gwoza is immediately converted into advanced weaponry, night-vision equipment, and logistical support. The result is a lethal paradox: the government is effectively funding the very munitions that will be used to kill its own soldiers and abduct more of its own citizens in the coming months.
A Logistics of Humiliation
The details of the alleged payoff are as sophisticated as they are humiliating. Intelligence sources describe a scene where the ransom was flown by helicopter to the group’s stronghold in Borno State. The transaction was reportedly overseen by Ali Ngulde, a notorious commander who, due to the remote nature of the terrain, allegedly crossed into Cameroon to confirm the digital receipt of the funds before releasing the first batch of children.
This level of operational control by insurgents suggests that in certain regions of the North, it is the terrorists, not the state, who dictate the terms of sovereignty. When a non-state actor can force the hand of a federal government to ignore its own laws—specifically the Nigerian law prohibiting ransom payments—the legal fabric of the nation begins to unravel.
The “Total Dominance” Horizon
Critics and security analysts warn that if these reports are accurate, Nigeria may have reached a point of “absolute paralysis.” By releasing two Boko Haram commanders back into the field, the state has not only replenished the enemy’s bank account but has also restored its tactical leadership.
The cycle is predictable and tragic: Terrorists abduct vulnerable citizens; the state, under immense public pressure, pays a “huge” ransom, terrorists use the funds to buy more sophisticated arms, and with better arms, the next attack is more daring, the death toll is higher, and the state is even less capable of a military response.
A State “Cooked” by Its Own Indecision?
The Tinubu administration and the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) have moved swiftly to label these reports “baseless” and “speculative.” They insist that the release was the result of strategic intelligence operations. However, the recurring nature of these allegations, coupled with the sheer scale of the St. Mary’s abduction, has left a skeptical public wondering if the government is merely managing the symptoms of a terminal disease rather than curing it.
While Tinubu’s presidency goes to town with the lies that terrorists released their captives free-of-charge, we’re also told that no terrorists died or injured from the crossfire between them and the military before they were freed without ransom payments! Can you beat APC hollow prevarication!
If Nigeria continues down the path of ransom diplomacy, the “cycle of terror” will eventually overwhelm the state’s capacity to govern. When the state becomes the primary financier of the insurgency through ransom, the distinction between the protector and the predator disappears.
As Jonathan Burke departs Abuja, the question remains: Can a nation truly counter terrorist financing when its own policy of survival involves fueling the enemy’s treasury? Without a pivot toward a total, non-negotiable security posture, the “total dominance” of terrorism may soon cease to be a fear and become an irreversible reality.
