A detailed account of how 38 worshippers kidnapped from the Christ Apostolic Church in Eruku, Kwara State were freed has triggered intense public debate across Nigeria, following comments by presidential aide Bayo Onanuga on the engagement between security agencies and the abductors.
In an interview with Arise TV, Onanuga explained that the Department of State Services (DSS) and the military located the kidnappers through intelligence tracking and successfully established direct communication with them. According to him, once contact was made, the abductors released the hostages because they understood the consequences of defying the instructions issued by the security forces.
Onanuga added that the captors were unarmed at the point of contact, a factor that allowed the operation to proceed without confrontation. He emphasized that the priority was to ensure the safe rescue of the abducted worshippers, noting that kidnappers often attempt to use victims as shields, which makes direct combat risky.
When asked if any deal or negotiation took place, he explained that the government’s overriding duty at the time was simply to recover the hostages alive. He said the decision on what actions should follow—whether arrests, prosecution or further operations—remains entirely within the mandate of the security agencies.
However, Onanuga’s revelations have ignited a wave of criticism and deep concern among Nigerians, with many citizens publicly questioning what they describe as a troubling pattern in the country’s security responses to violent crime.
Across social media, radio call-in shows, and civil society forums, Nigerians have been asking how the DSS and the military were able to issue firm directives to armed kidnappers—commands the abductors reportedly obeyed—yet failed to arrest them during or after the operation. Many argued that the public deserved clarification on why the security agencies allowed the perpetrators to retreat instead of ensuring their capture.
A recurring question among critics is whether security agencies truly have such influence over criminal groups, and if so, why similar approaches have not been used in other kidnapping cases. Some citizens openly questioned the nature of communication channels between the Nigerian state and the country’s violent armed groups, with a number of commentators describing the situation as “confusing,” “suspicious,” or “evidence of deeper issues within the security architecture.”
Public frustration is further fueled by longstanding concerns about Nigeria's struggle with organized violence. Nigerians expressed anger that, despite the apparent ability to track and communicate with abductors, similar intelligence-driven directives have not been applied to other ongoing kidnapping crises—such as schoolchildren abducted in various states who remain in captivity, sometimes for months.
Another major issue raised by Nigerians is the absence of any arrests following the rescue operation. Many citizens argued that releasing the hostages should not have prevented the security agencies from pursuing the kidnappers immediately afterward.
ivil society groups, analysts, and residents questioned why those responsible for multiple violent crimes—including mass abduction, assault, and extortion—were able to escape without prosecution. They argued that the continued freedom of such groups fuels further attacks and contributes to a climate of impunity.
Some Nigerians also criticized the government for what they described as inconsistency in its counter-terrorism and anti-kidnapping strategies. They contrasted the Eruku rescue with other cases in which victims were left in captivity far longer, raising concerns about whether different abductors are treated differently based on factors not yet publicly explained.
The incident has revived long-standing accusations from sections of the population who believe the government is not doing enough to dismantle terrorist and bandit networks across the country. While these claims are unverified, they reflect widespread frustration with the recurrent nature of attacks, including mass kidnappings, rural raids, killings, and destruction of property in northern and central states.
Some citizens and commentators described the situation as “a failure of political will,” arguing that Nigeria’s security institutions appear more focused on negotiating recoveries than preventing the crimes or eliminating the networks responsible. Others questioned why communities remain vulnerable if the intelligence and operational capacity exists to contact and influence the perpetrators.
Human rights advocates and security experts are now calling on the federal government to provide greater transparency on the nature of the Eruku operation. They argue that the public deserves to know whether the success was due to improved intelligence capabilities, undisclosed agreements, or changes in security doctrine.
There are also renewed calls for a comprehensive national security reform, including stronger accountability mechanisms, better coordination among agencies, and more proactive measures to prevent kidnapping rings from operating with what many citizens perceive as growing confidence.
As the debate intensifies, the Eruku rescue continues to stand as both a moment of relief for affected families and a flashpoint for broader questions about Nigeria’s long-running struggle with insecurity.
0 Comments