Refusing to Negotiate Sounds Strong - But what if I were the one being kidnapped?

The tragic death of retired Major General Rabe Abubakar while in captivity has reignited a difficult debate in Nigeria. President Tinubu’s firm declaration that the government will never release detained terrorists in exchange for kidnapped victims sends a message of strength and resolve. Yet, this stance raises a critical question: if the government refuses to negotiate, can it guarantee the safety of hostages? What happens when the state cannot rescue those held captive? This post explores the complexities behind refusing to negotiate with kidnappers and the real-life consequences for victims and their families.

Rural Nigerian village road showing limited security presence

The Government’s Position on Negotiations

The Nigerian government’s refusal to negotiate with terrorists reflects a common global policy aimed at discouraging kidnappings. The logic is straightforward: giving in to kidnappers’ demands may encourage more abductions and strengthen criminal networks. This approach aims to project strength and deny terrorists any leverage.

In the case of Major General Rabe Abubakar, the government’s stance was clear. Despite efforts, the tragic outcome showed the limits of this policy. The government insists that it will not bow to terrorists’ demands, emphasizing that negotiating with criminals undermines national security and justice.

The Reality of Kidnappings in Nigeria

Kidnappings remain a widespread security challenge across Nigeria, especially in rural areas with limited security presence. Many victims spend weeks or even months in captivity. The death of a high-ranking retired officer like Major General Rabe Abubakar highlights the harsh reality: if the state cannot rescue someone with military experience and connections, what hope do ordinary citizens have?

The government’s no-negotiation policy only works if it can back it up with effective intelligence, military capability, and rapid-response systems. Unfortunately, these resources are often stretched thin, and kidnappers continue to operate with impunity in many regions.

The Burden on Victims and Families

When the government refuses to negotiate, the burden of survival falls heavily on the victims and their families. Families endure emotional trauma, financial strain, and uncertainty while waiting for any sign of rescue or release. Without negotiation as an option, families may feel abandoned or powerless.

This situation raises ethical and practical questions. Should the government’s policy be absolute, or should there be room for flexibility in exceptional cases? The death of Major General Rabe Abubakar forces Nigerians to confront these difficult questions honestly.

Assessing Each Hostage Situation Individually

A rigid policy that refuses all negotiations removes the possibility of considering unique circumstances. Each kidnapping case differs in context, the profile of the victim, and the demands of the kidnappers. Some situations may allow for negotiation without compromising security, while others may not.

Governments should be judged by outcomes, not just intentions. If refusing to negotiate leads to more deaths or prolonged captivity, the policy’s effectiveness must be questioned. Flexibility could mean saving lives without necessarily empowering terrorists.

Examples from Other Countries

Countries facing similar challenges have adopted varied approaches. Some maintain strict no-negotiation policies but invest heavily in intelligence and rescue operations. Others allow limited negotiations under strict oversight to secure hostages’ release.

For example, Colombia faced decades of kidnappings by guerrilla groups. While initially refusing to negotiate, the government later engaged in talks that led to the release of many hostages. This pragmatic approach balanced firmness with compassion.

Building Capacity to Protect Lives

For Nigeria’s no-negotiation stance to succeed, the government must strengthen its ability to rescue hostages quickly and safely. This requires:

• Improved intelligence gathering to locate kidnappers and hostages

• Enhanced military and police rapid-response units trained for hostage rescue

• Better coordination between security agencies and local communities

• Investment in technology such as drones and surveillance tools

  
  

Without these capabilities, refusing to negotiate risks becoming a hollow promise that leaves victims vulnerable.

The Need for Honest National Dialogue

Major General Rabe Abubakar’s death is a painful reminder of the stakes involved. It should prompt a national conversation about security policies and their real-world impact. Nigerians deserve transparency about what the government can and cannot do to protect them.

This dialogue should include voices from security experts, victims’ families, and civil society. It should explore how to balance strength with compassion and how to adapt policies to changing realities.

Moving Forward with Compassion and Strength

Refusing to negotiate with terrorists sounds strong, but strength alone does not save lives. The government must demonstrate that it can protect hostages through effective action. Otherwise, the policy risks leaving innocent people to suffer.

Every hostage situation deserves careful assessment. Flexibility does not mean weakness; it means valuing human life and seeking the best possible outcome in difficult circumstances.

The challenge for Nigeria is to build the capacity to act decisively while maintaining a firm stance against terrorism. Only then can the government truly protect its citizens and honor the sacrifices of heroes like Major General Rabe Abubakar.