How Nigeria is handling the kidnappings, security crisis

A general view of Kuriga school in Kuririga where more than 250 pupils were kidnapped by gunmen, March 8, 2024. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 26 November 2025
Follow

How Nigeria is handling the kidnappings, security crisis

  • In just a week, assailants kidnapped over 300 schoolchildren, worshippers and teachers
  • Violent gangs raid villages, kill people and kidnap for ransom

LAGOS: The recent wave of kidnappings plaguing Nigeria is just the latest bout of security crises to hit Africa’s most populous country, which the government says it is fully committed to address.
In just a week, assailants kidnapped 25 schoolgirls, 38 worshippers, 315 school children and teachers, 13 young women and girls walking near a farm, and another 10 women and children — across various parts of the country.
Nigeria has suffered a string of abductions of schoolchildren since Islamist group Boko Haram kidnapped 276 girls in Chibok in the restive northeast in 2014, sparking an international outcry.
But the latest spate of successive kidnapping highlight President Bola Tinubu’s administration’s struggle with a long-running security crisis marked by jihadist attacks and violence by “bandit” gangs that raid villages, kill people and kidnap for ransom.
AFP looks at what the government in the regional powerhouse is doing.

- What is government doing to improve security? -

Tinubu on Tuesday said: “In response to the recent kidnappings and acts of terrorism, I have ordered a full security cordon over” thick forests where the gangs have bases.
He added the air force will “maintain continuous surveillance over the most remote areas” and work with ground units to “identify, isolate, disrupt, and neutralize all hostile elements” across areas where the recent kidnappings have occurred.
He has also ordered a redeployment of police VIP bodyguards to core policing duties, and approved the recruitment of 30,000 additional officers.
According to the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), more than 100,000 of the estimated 371,000-strong force were previously assigned to protect politicians and VIPs.
But police redeployment ordered at the weekend risks being “sabotaged” by the VIPs and the officers who get paid for their service. “The VIPs will feel vulnerable if they don’t have police protection,” said Kabir Adamu of Beacon Security and Intelligence consulting firm.

- How are hostages secured? -

Except when the air force uses the combative kinetic security approach, details of the circumstances under which hostages are released are rare.
Critics accuse the government of negotiating with captors.
Ransom payments for hostages is a sensitive topic. Ransom has been outlawed since 2022 and punishable by a minimum of 15 years in jail.
Authorities never admit to paying ransom, but it is “very likely” that money is paid to free the victims, said Confidence MacHarry of SBM Intelligence.
After 24 schoolgirls were released from Kebbi, state governor Nasir Idris, said the release was secured through “non-kinetic” efforts — such as diplomacy.
Shortly after the release on Tuesday evening, the “bandits” posted a video on social media claiming that government did not release the schoolgirls but was forced to negotiate with the kidnappers.
In July, bandits in northwestern Zamfara state slaughtered 33 people they had kidnapped month earlier despite receiving a $33,700 ransom, residents told AFP then.

- Why is kidnapping so rampant in Nigeria? -

Kidnapping has become an “epidemic for more than a decade, driven by numerous criminal and extremist groups,” said International Crisis Group’s Nnamdi Obasi.
A recent report by SBM Intelligence showed that “between July 2024 and June 2025, Nigeria’s kidnap-for-ransom crisis consolidated into a structured, profit-seeking industry.”
At least 4,722 people were kidnapped in 997 incidents, and at least 762 were killed with kidnappers demanding some 48 billion naira and but managed to get 2.57 billion naira (around $1.66 million).
According to MacHarry, kidnappings in the northwest and central regions are mostly carried out “Fulanis who had lost their cattle... lost their livelihood and decided to go into crime with their abundance of guns in the country.”

- Any solution to end the crisis? -

Happening just weeks after US President Donald Trump threatened Nigeria with military action over the alleged killing of Christians in large numbers, the latest attacks leave Abuja in an embarrassingly awkward situation.
According to the Kebbi governor, there was intelligence about a looming attack before the two dozen schoolgirls were taken. Soldiers were deployed to guard the school but vacated an hour before the attack, he told local media while, calling for an investigation into the withdrawal.
“There was sufficient intel,” said MacHarry, pointing to military failures which “regularly happen” but “nobody gets punished.”
Co-founder of the #BringBackOurGirls movement which campaigned for the release of the Chibok girls, Aisha Yesufu, pointed to a lack of “political will to fight” the gangs and jihadists.
“And as long as we don’t fight the terrorism, we’re going to continue to have things like this,” she said.


US House of Representatives passes war powers resolution backing Trump’s attacks on Iran

Updated 2 min 30 sec ago
Follow

US House of Representatives passes war powers resolution backing Trump’s attacks on Iran

  • It’s the second vote in as many days, after the Senate defeated a similar measure
  • Republicans largely back Trump, and most Democrats oppose the war
WASHINGTON: The House narrowly rejected a war powers resolution Thursday to halt President Donald Trump’s attacks on Iran, an early sign of unease in Congress over the rapidly widening conflict that is reordering US priorities at home and abroad.
It’s the second vote in as many days, after the Senate defeated a similar measure. Lawmakers are confronting the sudden reality of representing wary Americans in wartime and all that entails — with lives lost, dollars spent and alliances tested by a president’s unilateral decision to go to war with Iran.
While the tally in the House, 212-219, was expected to be tight, the outcome provided a clarifying snapshot of political support for, and opposition to, the US-Israel military operation and Trump’s rationale for bypassing Congress, which alone has the power to declare war. At the Capitol, the conflict has quickly carried echoes of the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many Sept. 11-era veterans now serve in Congress.
“Donald Trump is not a king, and if he believes the war with Iran is in our national interest, then he must come to Congress and make the case,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
House Speaker Mike Johnson warned that it would be “dangerous” to limit the president’s authority while the US military is already in conflict.
“We are not at war,” said Johnson, R-Louisiana, a close ally of Trump, contradicting others. He said the operation is limited in scope and duration, and the “mission is nearly accomplished.”
Republicans largely back Trump, and most Democrats oppose the war
Trump’s Republican Party, which narrowly controls the House and Senate, largely sees the conflict with Iran not as the start of a new war, but the end of a government that has long menaced the West. The operation has killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which some view as an opportunity for regime change, though others warn of a chaotic power vacuum.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his own constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” the country posed.
Mast, an Army veteran who worked as a bomb disposal expert in Afghanistan, said the war powers resolution was effectively asking “that the president do nothing.”
For Democrats, Trump’s attack on Iran, influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a war of choice that is testing the balance of powers in the Constitution.
“The framers weren’t fooling around,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., arguing that the Constitution is clear that only Congress can decide matters of war. “It’s up to us.”
Crossover coalitions emerged among those in Congress. Two Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the war powers resolution, while four Democrats joined Republicans to reject it.
The war powers resolution, if signed into law, would have immediately halted Trump’s ability to conduct the war unless Congress approved the military action. The president would likely veto it.
Trump officials provide shifting rationale for war
Trump has scrambled to win support for the nearly week-old conflict as Americans of all political persuasions take stock. Administration officials spent hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week trying to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
Six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait, and Trump has said more Americans could die. Thousands of Americans abroad have scrambled for flights, many lighting up phone lines at congressional offices as they sought help trying to flee the Middle East.
Trump said Thursday he must be involved in choosing Iran’s new leader. Yet Johnson, R-Louisiana, said this week that America has enough problems at home and is not about to be in the “nation-building business.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the war could extend eight weeks, twice as long as the president first estimated. Trump has left open the possibility of sending US troops into what has largely been a bombing campaign. More than 1,230 people in Iran have died.
The administration said the goal is to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles that it believes are shielding its nuclear program. It has also said Israel was ready to act, and American bases would face retaliation if the US did not strike Iran first. The US said Wednesday it torpedoed an Iranian warship near Sri Lanka.
“This administration can’t even give us a straight answer of as to why we launched this preemptive war,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, the Republican from Kentucky, an outlier in his party.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who had teamed up to force the release the Jeffrey Epstein files, also pushed the war powers resolution to the floor, past objections from Johnson’s GOP leadership. Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, a former Army Ranger, also voted for it. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Greg Landsman of Ohio and Juan Vargas of California voted against.
“Congress must stand with the president to finally close, once and for all, this dark chapter of history,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, said that as the daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled their homeland, she opposes the regime but is concerned that a democratic transition for the people of Iran never seems to a priority for Trump or the officials who briefed Congress.
“War carries profound and deadly consequences for our troops, for the American people and for the entire world,” she said. “It’s the most serious decision that a nation can make.”
Other Democrats have proposed an alternative resolution that would allow the president to continue the war for 30 days before he must seek congressional approval. The House also approved a separate measure affirming that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Senators sit in their desks for solemn vote
In the Senate, Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts during Trump’s second term. This one, however, was different.
Underscoring the gravity Wednesday, Democratic senators sat at their desks as the voting got underway.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that every senator will pick a side. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East?” he asked. Or with Trump and Hegseth “as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Sen. John Barrasso, second in Senate Republican leadership, said, “Democrats would rather obstruct Donald Trump than obliterate Iran’s national nuclear program.”
The legislation failed on a 47-53 tally mostly along party lines, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in favor and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, against.