Ransom Payment to Terrorists Is Biggest Betrayal of Nigeria’s Anti-Insurgency War — Ex-US Major Ogunsanya

Ransom payment to terrorists under any guise by the Federal Government is the biggest betrayal of Nigeria’s anti-insurgency war, a veteran of the United States Army with operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, Major Yinka Ogunsanya, has said.

Major Ogunsanya spoke while featuring as a Guest on Sunday night during the popular monthly interview discourse, Boiling Point Arena, anchored by a media professional and public relations strategist, Dr Ayo Arowojolu. He was paired alongside another Guest, ‘Leye Oyebade, mni, a retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police.

The programme was transmitted via Zoom and broadcast live on six radio stations, WASH 94.9FM, Sweet 107.1FM, Roots 97.1FM, Erimbe 94.7FM, Women Radio 91.7M FM and Kruzz 91.2FM, all in Lagos, Ogun and Delta States.

The topic of discourse was: “Decentralized Security Architecture: Redefining Federal and States Roles in State Policing as Nigeria Battles Escalating Insecurity”.

To, Major Ogunsanya, it is unheard of and a gross betrayal for any government in the world to pamper terrorists and foolhardy not to expect the escalating wave of insecurity and blood-letting as Nigeria is presently experiencing.

“Government ransom payment is what is empowering the terrorists and further deepening insecurity. This practice of paying ransom to these criminals is a betrayal of the anti-insurgency war,” he asserted.

According to him, what is needed is a global counter-insurgency (COIN) perspective, positing that Nigeria’s battle against insurgency cannot be won totally through “surgical” military strikes alone, drawing comparisons with international strategies—like those being implemented in the United State of America which rely heavily on “population-centric” approach where security is embedded into the social fabric.

He warned that without criminalizing the practice of negotiating with terrorists and instituting a robust investment in education, structural changes like state policing might only address the symptoms rather than the disease.

​Ogunsanya said: “The international method of fighting insurgency often employs the “3Ds” framework: Development, Diplomacy, and Defence. In countries like the U.S., decentralised policing is the norm, where local County, and State agencies operate with clear jurisdictions and high levels of accountability. Conversely, the Nigerian method has historically been “enemy-centric,” focusing on hard military power and a top-down command structure. This often leads to a disconnect between the federal “liberators” and the local “occupied” populations.

“To transition successfully, Nigeria must adopt the global standard of localised intelligence-led operations while maintaining federal oversight for cross-border crimes. One of the primary “pros” of local police is the advantage of proximity. Local officers speak the language, know the families, and understand the historical grievances of their communities. This creates a “home-court advantage” in intelligence gathering that a centrally deployed officer from a distant region simply cannot match.

“Furthermore, state policing allows for quicker response times to distress calls, as the chain of command is localised and less hindered by the bureaucratic bottlenecks of the Force Headquarters in Abuja. However, the “cons” of state policing are equally significant and form the crux of the opposition’s argument. Chief among these is the risk of political weaponization by state governors.

“There is a legitimate fear that state police could become “decentralised despots,” used to intimidate political rivals and suppress dissent. Additionally, the fiscal reality of Nigeria is a major hurdle; many states currently struggle to pay basic civil service salaries. Entrusting them with the high cost of training, arming, and maintaining a professional police force could lead to underfunded, poorly equipped, and potentially corrupt units.

​”To mitigate these risks, a hybrid model of “Decentralised Accountability” is necessary. This involves the establishment of federal oversight standards, where the National Police Service Commission sets uniform guidelines for training and vetting, while states manage the daily operations. The “Amotekun” model in the Southwest has already shown that sub-national security outfits can work effectively when they have clear operational mandates and legislative transparency. This “bottom-up” approach ensures that while the muscle is local, the skeleton—the rules and standards—remains national.

​”The role of the federal government in this new architecture would shift from “controller” to “enabler” and “regulator.” The federal police should focus on specialised tasks: counter-terrorism, inter-state crimes, and national intelligence. Meanwhile, the states would handle community policing and public order. This division of labour reduces the burden on the federal centre and allows for a more specialised, efficient use of resources. It redefines federalism not as a struggle for power, but as a partnership for protection.

​”In fighting insurgency, the contrast between the local and international approaches is most visible in the “Clear-Hold-Build” strategy. Internationally, once a territory is cleared of insurgents, a local police force “holds” the area while civilian authorities “build” infrastructure. In Nigeria, we often “clear” but fail to “hold” because we lack a localised police presence to stay behind. State police would fill this vacuum, ensuring that once the military moves on to the next frontline, the liberated communities do not fall back into the hands of bandits.
​
​”The way forward requires a constitutional amendment that is both bold and cautious. Nigeria must move away from Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, which vests exclusive policing power in the federal government. However, this amendment must include “trigger” clauses—financial and human rights benchmarks that a state must meet before it is granted the license to form its own police force. This ensures that only states with the capacity and commitment to professional standards can proceed, preventing a total collapse of order.”

A foremost traditional ruler, the Olowu of Owu Kingdom, Oba Prof Saka Matemilola was the Chair and Keynote Speaker at the programme.

Advertisements