Lateef Fagbemi, the Attorney-General of the Federation, recently declared that the government will not “name and shame” recognized terrorist funders, cementing the mistakes of previous Nigerian administrations in their approach to criminality....CONTINUE READING
His justification that this could “threaten further investigation or apprehension of others” is insufficient and unconvincing. President Bola Tinubu should abandon the politicization and reluctance that allowed terrorism and banditry to thrive and pushed the country towards state failure.
The first obligation of the state is to protect people and property. This includes the underlying concept of ‘Crime and Punishment’ that underpins a civilization. According to legal scholars, deterrence, retribution, prevention, and reformation are all goals that require a sovereign state to ensure that crime and criminals do not take over society.
Nigeria’s governments, on the other hand, are prone to selective application of the law and the politicization of insecurity.
These are visible in the responses of successive federal administrations to rampant terrorism, banditry, and Fulani herdsmen rapine. Tinubu’s hesitation is heightened by Fagbemi’s hesitation.
Fagbemi did not elaborate on his anti-naming and shaming attitude during the 27th Inter-Governmental Action Group Against Laundering in West Africa ministerial committee meeting in Abuja. However, he made a substantial reference to “identified” terrorist financiers.
However, once individuals are identified, the inquiry should proceed quickly. The argument that naming suspects could jeopardize ongoing investigations is tired. This is common procedure for law enforcement. Investigators will typically not inform suspects that they are being watched until sufficient evidence for their arrest and conviction has been acquired.
Nobody expects Nigeria’s investigators to do anything otherwise. However, Nigerians know from hard experience that their government has never been eager to punish terrorists and their backers. Instead, they make pathetic justifications.
The United Arab Emirates government formally named six Nigerians among 38 individuals and 15 companies supporting the destructive Boko Haram Islamist terror group in September 2021. In the Middle Eastern country, the six were tried and sentenced to prison terms ranging from ten years to life. All 38 were promptly sanctioned by other countries.
But Nigeria, the primary victim of Boko Haram terror, dithers. The UAE gave it the names of approximately 400 terror financiers in the country, including many bureaux de change. Abubakar Malami, the then-AGF, frequently pledged to name and prosecute them, even claiming to have detained them. But neither he nor his boss, Muhammadu Buhari, did.
Malami claimed to be “respecting the law” and claimed that unmasking suspects would jeopardize investigations. Lai Mohammed, the then-Information Minister, announced in February 2022 that 96 covert financiers of Boko Haram and ISWAP had been identified. He identified 123 firms, 33 BDCs, 26 suspected kidnappers, and seven others.
Again, none of these people, including the 45 apprehended by Mohammed, have been prosecuted.
This is not the way to combat terrorism. According to the UNODC, funding and money laundering support terrorists, bandits, and kidnappers. It urged the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute terrorist financiers in order to disrupt their funding.
In the 14 years that Islamic terrorists have terrorized Nigeria, no key financier has been convicted.
A Kurdish man was sentenced to prison in Sweden in July for attempting to finance terrorism; all 16 Saudi-based terrorism financiers identified by Saudi Arabia in 2007 were named and placed on trial. In July, a New York court condemned Mirsad Kandic, 41, to life in prison for funding and supplying terrorists in Iraq.
Nigeria should immediately and professionally identify, investigate, arrest, and punish terror financiers and suspects, as well as disrupt terrorist, bandit, and kidnapping funding sources.
