There are moments in public administration when leadership is best measured not by the volume of rhetoric, but by the willingness to confront a difficult problem with decisive action. For me, the development in Edo State’s battle against kidnapping-for-ransom deserves commendation.
Governor Monday Okpebholo has taken the bull by the horns by strengthening the judicial response to kidnapping, cultism and other violent crimes through the establishment of a special criminal court.
The significance of this intervention became clearer on 29 September 2026, when the Edo State Special Criminal Court delivered its maiden kidnapping judgment and sentenced four persons to death over their involvement in the abduction of a woman at the Vegetable Market off Airport Road, Benin City. The defendants — Marvellous Isaac, Wisdom Michael, Rufus Emete Michael and Gift Raphael were tried on an 11-count charge involving kidnapping, conspiracy, armed robbery, cultism and unlawful possession of firearms.
The court imposed death sentences on relevant counts, alongside other terms of imprisonment. It also ordered the confiscation and destruction of a pump-action firearm and cartridges tendered as exhibits.
This is no small feat for Edo State. It sends an unmistakable message that kidnapping is not merely another criminal enterprise to be discussed endlessly at security meetings while victims and their families bear the consequences. More importantly, the special court is intended to address one of the most persistent weaknesses in Nigeria’s criminal justice system: the interminable delay between arrest, prosecution and judgment.
Indeed, the court’s judgment was particularly instructive because Justice Terry Aigbona Momodu reportedly observed that the law left him without discretion in imposing the prescribed sentences. In other words, the court did not invent the punishment; it applied the law. That distinction matters. A society governed by the rule of law must allow the courts to administer laws duly made, while ensuring that accused persons receive a fair hearing and retain every lawful right of appeal.
Governor Okpebholo therefore deserves a thumbs-up for recognising that the fight against kidnapping cannot be won through security operations alone. The police and other security agencies may arrest suspects, but arrests without effective prosecution and timely adjudication can produce little deterrent value. Criminal justice is a chain: intelligence, prevention, arrest, investigation, prosecution, adjudication and where conviction is final, lawful punishment. A weak link anywhere along that chain can embolden criminals.
Yet, while applauding Edo State, I am compelled to raise a concern that should exercise the minds of governors, lawmakers and security strategists across Nigeria. What happens when a state becomes hostile territory for kidnappers, while neighbouring states remain relatively attractive operating environments?
This is the elephant in the room.
Criminals are opportunistic. If they discover that the legal and security environment in one jurisdiction has become too hostile, they may relocate their activities to another where the risks are perceived to be lower. That is why Edo’s new posture, commendable as it is, could inadvertently produce a displacement effect if neighbouring states do not strengthen their own legal and institutional responses.
Imagine a kidnapping syndicate that has learnt that Edo State has become increasingly difficult terrain because cases can be fast-tracked and severe statutory penalties can follow conviction. If the same syndicate can cross a state boundary into a jurisdiction where prosecution is slower, special courts do not exist, relevant laws are weaker or inconsistently enforced, and criminal proceedings can linger for years, what rational choice would a criminal organisation make?
The danger is obvious. Edo could succeed in pushing the problem beyond its borders without eliminating the criminal networks responsible for it. The result would be a dangerous geographical redistribution of kidnapping rather than its meaningful suppression.
This is not a hypothetical concern. Even if Edo succeeds in making the state increasingly inhospitable to kidnappers and consequently reduces kidnapping within its territory, Edo people do not live, work or conduct their businesses exclusively within the state’s boundaries. They travel to neighbouring and distant states for business, education, religious activities, family visits, professional engagements and other legitimate purposes. What happens to an Edo resident who leaves the state and enters a jurisdiction where the legal and security environment remains comparatively permissive? The safety achieved at home could suddenly become vulnerable the moment the traveller crosses the state boundary.
This concern becomes even more compelling against the backdrop of recent reports of the abduction of about 20 National Youth Service Corps members in the eastern part of Nigeria, with the kidnappers reportedly demanding as much as N900 million in ransom. If accurately established, such an incident is a sobering reminder that Nigerians cannot be protected merely by fortifying individual states. A citizen does not cease to deserve protection because he or she has travelled outside his or her state of residence. The same applies to Corps members, students, traders, transporters, tourists and business people whose legitimate activities routinely take them across state boundaries.
Therefore, while the Edo lawmakers and the state government deserve commendation for strengthening the legal framework and potentially mitigating the incidence of kidnapping within Edo, the ultimate objective must be broader than making Edo safe in isolation. Edo people will continue to travel, and criminals will continue to exploit jurisdictional gaps unless neighbouring states adopt similarly robust laws, efficient prosecution mechanisms and effective security strategies. The safety of Edo’s citizens cannot end at the state’s geographical boundaries.
This is why Edo’s achievement should not be treated as an isolated state victory. It should be regarded as a template for a nationally coordinated response. Other state governments must look closely at what is happening in Edo and ask themselves whether their own laws, courts and enforcement mechanisms are sufficiently robust to confront kidnapping-for-ransom.
Neighbouring governors must not wait until kidnappers move into their forests, communities and highways before acting. Security intelligence should already map escape routes, criminal corridors, forest hideouts and interstate networks. Kidnapping-for-ransom syndicates rarely respect political boundaries. Why, then, should the response be trapped within them?
There is also a broader lesson for state Houses of Assembly. Where laws are inadequate, lawmakers should review and strengthen them in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws. Where prosecution is undermined by poor investigation, evidence management or insufficient prosecutorial capacity, those deficiencies must be addressed.
This is particularly important because kidnapping-for-ransom has evolved beyond random criminality. In many places, it has become an organised and economically motivated business enterprise. Its ecosystem can involve recruiters, informants, financiers, gun suppliers, drivers, negotiators, intelligence gatherers, safe-house operators and those who receive or launder ransom proceeds. Fighting only the gunman at the point of abduction therefore leaves the larger criminal architecture intact.
Consequently, state governments must widen the scope of their response. It is not enough to sentence captured kidnappers. Law enforcement must pursue the money trail, identify financiers and accomplices, disrupt communication networks, seize criminal assets where the law permits, and dismantle the infrastructure that makes abduction profitable.
There is another important dimension: interstate cooperation. The governors and security agencies of Edo, Delta, Ondo, Kogi, Anambra and other states connected by major highways, forests, rivers and commercial routes cannot afford to operate in silos. Intelligence-sharing must become routine rather than occasional. Joint operations, coordinated surveillance and rapid cross-border communication can make it harder for criminals to exploit jurisdictional gaps.
The Federal Government also has a role to play. Kidnapping is a national security challenge, even when particular offences occur within state territories. The Nigeria Police Force, military formations, intelligence agencies and state security structures should deepen cooperation with state governments.
Governments must also recognise that punishment alone cannot defeat kidnapping. Punishment may deter some potential offenders, but sustainable security requires prevention. Rural communities need effective security presence. Roads and vulnerable settlements require surveillance. Emergency response systems must be strengthened.
Young people need meaningful opportunities that make criminal recruitment less attractive. Traditional rulers, community leaders and residents must be incorporated into local intelligence networks, without exposing informants to retaliation.
The judiciary must also be adequately supported. A special court without competent judges, prosecutors, investigators, defence counsel, court administrators, forensic capacity and secure evidence management cannot deliver miracles. Speed must never become a euphemism for denial of justice. The rights of the accused must remain protected because justice is measured not only by punishment, but also by how fairly guilt is determined.
The recent Edo judgment itself illustrates why due process matters. The convictions followed a trial on multiple counts, and reports indicate that appeals remain legally available. That is how a functioning justice system should operate. A death sentence pronounced by a court is not the same thing as immediate execution. Every lawful appellate and constitutional safeguard must be respected.
If Edo builds a formidable legal wall while neighbouring states leave wide openings through which criminals can escape, the wall will not provide lasting security. It may simply redirect the criminal traffic. That is why the Edo example should trigger an urgent national conversation and, more importantly, practical action.
The National Assembly, the governors and state Houses of Assembly should therefore see the Edo intervention as a wake-up call. Nigeria cannot afford a situation in which kidnapping is heavily penalised in one state but becomes comparatively less risky in another. Such a disparity could unintentionally create a migration route for criminality.
Governor Monday Okpebholo has taken a bold step. His administration deserves commendation for moving the fight from political declarations to institutional action. But the real test is not the number of death sentences secured; it is whether Edo can sustain a comprehensive strategy that makes kidnapping increasingly difficult, unprofitable and ultimately untenable.
And here lies the clarion call: let Edo’s action become a catalyst, not an exception. Let other states strengthen their laws, courts and security institutions. Let neighbouring jurisdictions close the gaps. Let intelligence cross state boundaries as easily as criminals do.
If Nigeria truly intends to defeat kidnapping-for-ransom, every state must become an uncomfortable environment for the kidnapper. Anything less may simply compel the men of the underworld to pack their bags, cross the next boundary and continue their reprehensible business elsewhere.
_______________________________
Dr. Odaro is a columnist and lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Media Studies, Auchi Polytechnic, Edo State, Nigeria.
