Methodist Church of Nigeria Prelate Samuel Kanu-Uche regained his freedom early last week, some 24 hours after he was kidnapped in Abia State along with two other principals of his church. He was abducted penultimate Sunday on Enugu-Port Harcourt Expressway, Umunneochi council area of the state, together with his chaplain, Very Rev. Abidemi Shittu, and Bishop of Owerri Rt. Rev. Dennis Mark.
At a press conference in Lagos on Tuesday, the clergyman made known that his release, along with that of other abductees, was secured upon his church paying N100million ransom to the abductors. Prelate Kanu-Uche recalled that he had a 4p.m. flight to catch and his team had set out for the airport at about 2p.m., but ran into an ambush by an eight-man gang of kidnappers. “As we were descending to Ileru in Abia State, they came out from the bush and divided themselves into three groups…They fired shots at our vehicle and eventually abducted three of us; the communication man of the church and the driver escaped. They took us into the bush and tortured us,” he said.
According to the prelate, the abductees were led on a trek of up to 15 kilometers into the bush by the kidnappers whose leader was about 35 years old. “Eventually at 11p.m., they said we should negotiate and each of us should pay N50million, making N150million.” He added that when he tried to reduce the ransom, the hoodlums threatened to shoot him. But they eventually agreed to peg the ransom at N100million, upon which he reached out to leaders of the church and his wife to raise the money by all means. The prelate stated that military personnel were located close to where the hoodlums operated and insinuated their complicity – a charge that has been rebuffed by the Army. “They (the kidnappers) pointed their guns at us, threatened that if we involved the DSS, Police or Army, they would kill us. They said further down was a gully containing seven decomposing bodies whose heads they had cut off. We ourselves perceived the odour of the bodies,” he recalled inter alia, saying the Methodist Church shortly after sent in the ransom raised by members.
Of course, it was unhelpful that ransom was paid, as that could incentivise kidnappers to further exploits. But the prelate’s narrative highlighted the lame disposition of the state security machinery in rescuing abductees, forcing them to help themselves by paying their way out of captivity. It was bad enough that the state failed in securing the environment sufficiently to avert kidnappings – in this case, concerning the head of a religious organisation having millions of members. It was worse that nearly 24 hours after the crime, the security machinery was not activated to track down the kidnappers and rescue the hostages.
Scenarios as this unavoidably suggest impotency of the state and condemnation of victims to self-help – a factor that makes the idea of criminalising ransom payment without commensurate guarantee of a secure environment, which is currently in the legislative mill, a ridiculous idea. Hostages of the recent Kaduna-Abuja rail service attack remain in terrorists’ captivity about 70 days on, with no indication their rescue by the state is imminent and relations of those hostages in deep agony because the terrorists are not negotiating with them and have insisted on dealing only with government. If they had the choice, many of the affected families would likely opt for paying their relations’ way out of captivity.
And sometimes, it isn’t very obvious why the hoodlums are difficult to track down. Ignore for the moment the obvious failure of proactive intelligence. Where kidnappers used the phone lines of victims to contact their relations – with security data like the National Identification Number (NIN) attached – it is curious why such calls could not be geolocated and the hoodlums swiftly pounced upon. There is a critical gap in the security set-up that needs to be plugged.