𝐊𝐈𝐃𝐍𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡, 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐀𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭

FEATURE:

𝐊𝐈𝐃𝐍𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡, 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐀𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭

By: Oriaifoh Godwins

The sentencing of four suspected kidnappers to death has understandably generated different reactions across the public space.

Some have expressed sympathy. Others have welcomed the judgment, particularly against the background of the fear, trauma and suffering that kidnappings has inflicted on individuals, families and communities.

But sentiments apart, there are some fundamental issues that deserve to be noted.

First, the fact that the accused persons faced several counts of kidnapping-related offences is significant. It suggests that the case before the court was not simply about one isolated incident. The allegations, as presented before the court, concerned multiple offences.

And this raises a sobering question: how many families may have suffered before their final operation at the vegetable market, Benin, which eventually led to their apprehension?

For victims of kidnapping, the experience is rarely limited to the moment of abduction. It can leave behind fear, psychological trauma, financial hardship and, in the most tragic circumstances, death.

Kidnappers do not always spare their victims even after ransom has been paid. There have been cases in which families complied with ransom demands, only for their loved ones to be killed nonetheless. For the victim and the family, therefore, kidnapping is not merely a criminal enterprise; it is an experience capable of permanently altering lives.

This is why the argument that criminals should be treated with sympathy must also be balanced against the rights and experiences of their victims.

Sentiments and the identity question

Another issue worth emphasising is the identity of those sentenced in this particular case. No Fulani person, according to the information surrounding this case, was among the four condemned. This is important because kidnapping in parts of Nigeria has sometimes been associated, in public discourse, with particular ethnic groups. But criminality should not be automatically assigned to an entire ethnic group. Where evidence establishes that particular individuals committed a crime, responsibility should rest on those individuals and, where applicable, on their proven collaborators. 

If an investigation establishes that indigenous persons assisted criminal gangs by providing information, accommodation, logistics or other forms of support, such persons should equally face the law.

The lesson is straightforward: crime has no ethnicity, and justice should follow evidence rather than sentiment.

Behind every convicted criminal is a family.

There is another uncomfortable dimension.

The four condemned persons have, or had, parents, siblings, friends and acquaintances. Some of these people may have known about the activities in which they were allegedly involved. 

Some may have warned them. Others may have remained silent.

Whatever the circumstances, their fate should serve as a serious warning to families and friends who know that someone close to them is involved in kidnapping or another violent crime.

Silence can have consequences.

Nobody should wait until the police arrest a relative, until a court pronounces judgment, or until a life is lost before acknowledging that a criminal enterprise is destroying lives.

For those that are still involved in kidnapping, the message from this case should be clear enough: there is no guarantee that you will escape justice forever.

Everyday may be for the thief, as the saying goes, but one day is for the law.

What about the judge's compassion?

Some people have pointed to the reported emotion surrounding the pronouncement of the judgment, arguing that even the judge was moved by the circumstances.

Perhaps that should not be surprising. Judges are human beings, and sentencing someone to death is undoubtedly one of the gravest responsibilities a judicial officer can discharge.

But compassion does not necessarily mean that the law can be ignored. Where a court, after due process, finds that the evidence and applicable law require a particular sentence, the judge cannot simply substitute personal emotion for the law. Indeed, that may be one of the most important messages from this case: even where there is human sympathy, the consequences of criminal conduct can ultimately be determined by the law.

For those still engaged in kidnapping, the warning is therefore not about whether a judge will feel pity. It is about whether the law will eventually catch up with them.

A message beyond the four convicts

The judgment is bigger than the four individuals involved.

It sends a message to people who may currently be contemplating kidnapping as a means of making money. It sends another message to those who provide information, logistics or safe havens for criminal gangs.

And it sends a message to communities: protecting criminals or looking the other way, can ultimately put the entire community at risk.

At the same time, the fight against kidnapping must remain anchored in due process. Arrest, prosecution and conviction must be based on credible evidence, and every accused person is entitled to the protections guaranteed by law until guilt is established by a competent court.

That distinction matters.

A society cannot defeat criminality by abandoning justice. It defeats criminality by making the law effective, credible and capable of protecting innocent citizens, while holding proven offenders accountable.

Edo state's security challenge

For Edo State, the development also comes against the backdrop of the state government's stated emphasis on security and the protection of lives and property.

Governor Monday Okpebholo has repeatedly presented his administration's agenda around the theme of “Delivering Practical Governance, Leading a New Narrative.”

Like him or hate him, one thing is increasingly clear from the rhetoric of Governor Okpebholo's administration: security is being presented as an important component of that new narrative.

For those involved in kidnapping, cultism and other violent criminal activities, the appropriate response is not to wait until security agencies apprehend them.

They should quit now. Because, once the law catches up with a criminal, the consequences may be far more severe than the criminal anticipated.

Finally, sentiments apart:

Nobody should celebrate the suffering of another human being. But neither should sympathy for a convicted criminal make us forget the victims.

The families whose loved ones were abducted also have emotions. The victims who survived also carry memories. Those who lost relatives to criminal violence also deserve justice.

Perhaps the most useful way to look at the sentencing of these four convicts, is therefore not simply to ask whether they deserve sympathy or condemnation.

Rather, we should ask:

What can society learn from their downfall?

Families must discourage their members from entering criminal enterprises.

Communities must reject the protection of criminals. Security agencies must continue to improve intelligence and operations. The courts must continue to dispense justice according to law.

And those still involved in kidnapping should take the warning seriously. The day may come when there will be nowhere to run, nowhere to hide and nobody able to negotiate their way out.

Every day may be for the thief, but one day is for the law. A word, they say, is enough for the wise.

Oriaifoh Godwins, a Journalist, and Public Affairs analyst, can be reached on: eventsp24@gmail.com