These are anxious times in Oyo State. Across communities in Oriire Local Government Area, fear now travels faster than traffic and arrives long before dusk. The recent abduction of teachers and pupils along the Ahoro-Esiele and Yawota axis has shaken public confidence, but the reported killing and decapitation of mathematics teacher, Mr Michael Oyedokun, has done something far worse. His only crime was going to school to teach his students. And that has signalled to citizens that in parts of Nigeria, criminal violence no longer seeks to harm. It seeks to rule. Such brutality is not an ordinary crime. It is psychological warfare designed to terrorise communities into submission and convince citizens that, in certain territories, criminal gangs have become alternative centres of power.
It is against this backdrop that Governor Seyi Makinde’s reported willingness to listen to the demands of abductors to secure the release of kidnapped pupils, students, and teachers has reignited an old and uncomfortable debate: should governments negotiate with terrorists and kidnappers? Around the world, states often proclaim a doctrine of non-negotiation. The phrase, “we do not negotiate with terrorists”, has become a staple of official rhetoric, repeated so often that it appears immutable. The logic is straightforward. Paying ransoms or conceding demands rewards criminality, strengthens violent groups, and encourages future attacks. In 2013, the G8 nations reaffirmed their commitment to denying ransom payments to terrorist organisations, arguing that every concession motivates further violence.
