As Senate Moves to Redefine Kidnapping as Terrorism…

As insecurity escalates nationwide, the red chamber of the National Assembly advances sweeping reforms to redefine kidnapping as terrorism, dismantle ineffective oversight structures, and outlaw deradicalisation for terror offenders, reports Sunday Aborisade.

As the wave of violent abductions continues to sweep across states in Nigeria, leaving families traumatised and communities destabilised, the Senate has launched one of its boldest legislative offensives yet against banditry, terrorism and the fast-expanding kidnapping industry. Central to the effort is a proposed amendment to the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, seeking to classify kidnapping and hostage-taking as acts of terrorism and impose the death penalty on perpetrators as well as their financiers, informants and logistical collaborators.

The initiative, perhaps the Senate’s strongest position on national security in recent years, has triggered fresh national debate about the limits of deterrence, the failures of existing counter-terrorism strategies and the urgency of deploying a more coherent state response to a rapidly evolving security crisis.

For the red chamber, the last two weeks have been unusually intense. From extended plenary debates to emergency consultations with security chiefs and closed-door sessions, senators have been immersed in a flurry of legislative activity spurred by a sequence of deeply unsettling incidents of mass abduction. In Kebbi, Niger and Kwara States, coordinated attacks on schools and rural communities led to the abduction of more than 300 Nigerians, including about 250 schoolgirls.

Although some victims have since regained their freedom, the shock generated by the incidents and the growing evidence of organised criminal sophistication behind them propelled lawmakers into urgent action.

The perception within the chamber was that the country stood at a dangerous crossroads. Kidnapping, once episodic, now exhibits the structure, financing patterns and psychological objectives typical of full-blown terrorism.

Many senators argued that the existing legal framework was simply inadequate to address a phenomenon that had not only escalated in intensity but also grown into a parallel criminal economy feeding off weak institutions and porous borders.

One of the Senate’s earliest and most dramatic decisions was the dissolution of its Committees on Air Force and on National Security and Intelligence. The move, rare in Nigeria’s legislative history, was endorsed unanimously. Senate Leader OpeyemiBamidele, who moved the motion, attributed the dissolution to what he described as “ineffectiveness” in the committees’ oversight roles over critical components of the nation’s security infrastructure.

While he offered no detailed account of their lapses, Bamidele noted that persistent intelligence failures and operational weaknesses had contributed to the worsening security climate.

The Senate President, GodswillAkpabio, put the motion before the chamber, and it sailed through without objection, a sign of the chamber’s resolve to examine its own performance before demanding accountability from the executive or the security establishment.

In addition, the Committees on Army, Navy, Defence, Interior and Police Affairs were directed to submit comprehensive reports on their oversight activities within two weeks. The instruction, senators said, was not procedural but a statement of intent: every committee with responsibility for security matters must demonstrate relevance and effectiveness in the face of escalating threats.

The Senate also fast-tracked President Bola Tinubu’s request for the screening and confirmation of his new Minister of Defence nominee, General Christopher Musa.

In a clear departure from tradition, the chamber considered the request on the very day it was transmitted. Many senators insisted that leaving a sensitive ministry without substantive leadership at a time of heightened insecurity would be dangerously irresponsible. Musa was screened and cleared swiftly, sending a clear signal that the chamber was ready to eliminate bureaucratic delays hindering national security reforms.

At the heart of the Senate’s renewed offensive is the Bill to Amend the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, sponsored by Senate Leader Bamidele. The bill, which has now passed second reading, proposes significant changes that redefine kidnapping and transform the way the Nigerian state responds to violent crime.

Leading the debate, Bamidele outlined the key objectives of the amendment. First is the formal classification of kidnapping and hostage-taking as acts of terrorism. By bringing the offences fully under the terrorism framework, security agencies would gain access to more robust investigative and prosecutorial tools, including intelligence-led operations, inter-agency coordination, asset tracing, forfeiture mechanisms, fast-tracked pre-trial procedures and stronger means of disrupting the financing networks that sustain kidnapping rings. Bamidele argued that the operational structures of kidnapping syndicates, ranging from logistics to financing and territorial control, now mirror those of terror groups, making reclassification necessary.

Second, the amendment introduces the death penalty for kidnapping. While current legislation prescribes severe prison terms, the new proposal seeks capital punishment for kidnappers, hostage-takers and those who knowingly facilitate their operations. The list, as explained by Bamidele, includes logistics providers, financiers, informants, harbourers, transporters and any person offering direct or indirect support to kidnapping enterprises.

He argued that the scale of brutality associated with the crime, including torture, rape, starvation, killings and the sale of captives, demanded the strongest possible deterrence, particularly as kidnapping has evolved into an extensive funding base for terror networks.

The third objective of the amendment is to eliminate loopholes that allow terror suspects or violent offenders, especially those processed under deradicalisationprogrammes, to return to crime. It was at this stage that the debate in the chamber took a more contentious turn. Several senators sharply criticised the federal government’s deradicalisation and reintegration programme for insurgents, introduced during the Boko Haram conflict. Senator Adams Oshiomhole, Chairman of the Committee on Interior, argued that available evidence showed that some “repentant” terrorists re-joined violent groups after passing through the programme.

He contended that the model of arresting extremists, enrolling them in ideological re-orientation sessions and releasing them back into society had proven inadequate in the face of contemporary security realities. According to him, the programme created risks of recidivism and undermined the sense of justice for victims who continued to live with trauma while perpetrators avoided proportional punishment. He insisted that Nigeria could no longer afford to “appease criminality” under the guise of deradicalisation.

Former Senate Chief Whip, Senator Orji UzorKalu aligned himself with Oshiomhole, lamenting the agonies suffered by victims across the country. He spoke about the rape of minors, the sudden widowing of women and the dislocation of families and communities. Kalu insisted that everyone involved in the kidnapping chain, including informants and sponsors, should face the full weight of the law.

He argued that Nigerians had endured too much pain from kidnappers and that the state now owed its citizens a firm, uncompromising response. Throughout the debate, senators highlighted the broader socio-economic implications of kidnapping. Many noted that ransom payments had become a significant informal economic flow, fuelling arms markets, recruiting insurgents and weakening state authority.

Agricultural communities have been displaced, transport routes abandoned and commercial activities disrupted across several states. Some lawmakers warned that if the trend continued unchecked, it could erode investor confidence, deepen poverty and threaten national cohesion.

This understanding of kidnapping as both a criminal and an economic threat underpinned the Senate’s determination to frame the crime within a counter-terrorism architecture. Senators argued that the country required a legal framework that matched the scale and sophistication of the threat. Under the proposed law, law enforcement agencies would be empowered to pursue kidnapping rings with the same intensity as terror cells, dismantle financing structures, block ransom flows, freeze assets, conduct coordinated intelligence operations and expedite trial timelines.

These measures, senators insisted, would ensure that kidnapping, no matter where it occurs in the federation, is treated as a direct assault on national security and not merely a common law offence.

After a lengthy and exhaustive debate, the Senate passed the amendment bill into second reading unanimously, marking a rare moment of complete alignment in a chamber often divided along party or regional lines.

Minority Leader Abba Moro, a former Minister of Interior, captured the overall sentiment when he said Nigeria had reached a point where “consequence must replace accommodation” in confronting kidnapping and terrorism. The bill has been referred to multiple committees, including those on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters; Interior; and National Security and Intelligence, for further legislative work.

The committees are expected to organise a public hearing within two weeks, incorporate stakeholder contributions and return the harmonised version to plenary for clause-by-clause consideration. The process will be led by Senator AdeniyiAdegbonmire (SAN) who chairs the Judiciary Committee.

For many observers, the Senate’s new posture reflects a deepening sense of urgency driven by public frustration and the economic risks associated with rising insecurity. Yet the initiative also raises difficult questions about implementation, human rights obligations and the capacity of security agencies to operationalise the reforms.

Still, one fact is indisputable: Nigeria stands at a pivotal moment. With kidnappers expanding their operations, rural communities living in perpetual fear and the economy absorbing the shockwaves of insecurity, the Senate believes the country must now embrace a stronger legal and institutional framework. Whether the legislative offensive becomes a turning point in Nigeria’s long fight against kidnapping or a missed opportunity will only become clear in the months ahead.