22/12/2025
WE MUST NOT BE DECEIVED
By
Ted Ebute
A mere declaration made during a budget presentation or any other ceremonial event—no matter how emphatic—does not, by itself, amount to a serious counter-terrorism policy. Words, when not backed by law and deliberate action, easily become political sedatives: meant to calm public anger while the danger persists.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent pronouncement that anyone who attacks citizens or engages in kidnapping will henceforth be treated as a terrorist may sound reassuring. The echo of this position by his ministerial team also suggests a coordinated narrative. However, Nigerians have learned—often through bitter experience—that insecurity does not recede on the strength of rhetoric. What defeats terrorism is law, enforcement, and political will.
History provides a clear contrast. When Boko Haram was formally designated a terrorist organisation, it was not done through casual statements. On 20 September 2013, the Federal Government, acting through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, obtained an order of the Federal High Court, Abuja, proscribing Boko Haram and placing it on Nigeria’s official list of terrorist organisations. This action was anchored on the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011, as amended in 2013, which provides the legal framework for the identification, proscription, and punishment of terrorist groups and their sponsors.
Similarly, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) was proscribed following a formal legal process. On 20 September 2017, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted an ex parte order designating IPOB a terrorist organisation, following an application by the Federal Government under the same Terrorism (Prevention) Act. Whatever one’s opinion about that decision, one fact remains incontestable: the government acted through clear legal instruments, not press statements or budget speeches.
That is the standard Nigerians are entitled to demand today.
If armed groups ravaging communities across the Middle Belt, North-West, and other parts of the country are now to be treated as terrorists, then the process must be equally transparent and lawful.
Where are the court orders proscribing these groups?
Where is the updated official register of terrorist organisations as envisaged under Section 2 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act? Where are the prosecutions of sponsors, financiers, arms suppliers, and enablers, as provided for under Sections 15–18 of the Act?
Terrorism is not defeated by semantics.
Renaming bandits as terrorists without following through with arrests, prosecutions, asset seizures, and convictions only reinforces the perception of state weakness or complicity. Worse still, it emboldens the perpetrators, who correctly read official hesitation as lack of resolve.
Nigeria’s laws are not lacking. Beyond the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, there are provisions in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015), the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (2022), and related statutes that empower the state to trace funds, freeze accounts, and dismantle terror networks. What is lacking is the consistent, courageous application of these laws—especially when powerful interests may be implicated.
If President Tinubu is serious about ending terrorism, Nigerians must see concrete, deliberate actions:
formal legal designations, decisive military and intelligence operations, public trials of arrested suspects, and accountability for security failures.
Anything short of this amounts to what the country has endured for too long—romancing insecurity with wishy-washy statements and a sluggish response while innocent citizens pay with their lives.
We must not be deceived. Terrorism thrives where the state speaks loudly but acts softly. What Nigeria needs now is not another declaration, but the unmistakable force of law in action.