There are moments in public discourse when emotion must be tempered by reason, and there are moments when leadership must choose the difficult path rather than the popular one.
The recent criticism of the Speaker of the Oyo State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Adebo Ogundoyin, over his remarks on the abduction of teachers and pupils in Oriire Local Government falls squarely within that category.
The article authored by Sola Abegunde is understandably emotional. No decent human being can remain unmoved by the pain, uncertainty and anguish being experienced by the families of the abducted teachers and pupils.
Every parent in Oyo State, indeed every Nigerian, shares their anxiety and prays fervently for the safe return of the victims.
However, public policy, particularly in matters involving terrorism and kidnapping, cannot be driven solely by emotions.
It must be guided by wisdom, experience, national security considerations and the long-term implications of every action taken by government.
The criticism directed at Speaker Ogundoyin appears to stem from a dangerous misconception: that refusing to negotiate with terrorists automatically means abandoning victims. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That conclusion is not only flawed, it is a distortion of both logic and reality and this pattern has become evident in almost all of Abegunde’s submissions on matters of governance in Oyo state.
Maybe this pattern is tied to playing to the gallery as an opposition element or a genuine submission aimed at providing clarity and more robust solution-based perspective, remains to be seen.
Now to the crux of the matter, the Speaker never suggested that government should abandon the abducted pupils and teachers.
Rather, he raised a very fundamental question that all responsible governments around the world confront daily: should the state surrender to the demands of terrorists and kidnappers, thereby creating a dangerous precedent that encourages further abductions?
This is not a hypothetical question,
it is a question that has confronted nations across the globe.
From the United States to the United Kingdom, from Israel to India, governments have repeatedly maintained that rewarding terrorists strengthens criminal networks, finances future attacks and places even more innocent citizens at risk.
As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously observed, terrorism feeds on publicity and concessions. Once governments begin yielding to terror demands, criminals quickly discover that kidnapping becomes a profitable enterprise.
The result is predictable; more kidnappings, more victims, more suffering, and unarguably more insecurity.
Those advocating unconditional negotiations often focus only on the immediate victims, which is understandable. But leadership demands a broader perspective.
A government must not only consider today’s victims but also tomorrow’s potential victims. It must ask difficult questions.
What happens if terrorists are rewarded today, what message does that send to criminal gangs hiding in forests across Nigeria, what stops another group from abducting fifty schoolchildren next month, or what prevents an even larger attack in the future?
These are the questions the Speaker, Ogundoyin was addressing headlong without allowing emotions to overrun his sense of logical reasoning as a leader.
They may not be politically convenient questions, but they are necessary questions.
It is therefore surprising that Abegunde has chosen to interpret caution and responsibility as helplessness.
In reality, the opposite is true because a
government that refuses to surrender to terrorists is not helpless.
A government that mobilises security agencies, coordinates intelligence gathering, engages security stakeholders and pursues lawful rescue strategies is not helpless.
A government that works tirelessly behind the scenes while avoiding statements capable of jeopardising rescue efforts is not helpless. It is simply acting responsibly.
What is even more troubling is the attempt to portray the Speaker’s position as isolated or extreme.
Nothing could be more inaccurate than that. Across Nigeria, respected leaders, security experts, Islamic scholars and Muslim organisations have consistently opposed negotiating with terrorists.
Even the popular Islamic scholar, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, despite his controversial engagements with bandits in previous years, has repeatedly acknowledged that criminality cannot become a permanent business model sustained by government concessions.
The leadership of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), under the Sultan of Sokoto, His Eminence Alhaji Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III, has consistently condemned kidnapping and terrorism while urging security agencies to intensify lawful efforts against criminal elements.
Likewise, the Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), one of Nigeria’s foremost Islamic organisations, has repeatedly maintained that kidnapping and terrorism violate Islamic teachings and should never be legitimised through actions that embolden criminals.
Beyond religious organisations, eminent Nigerians have voiced similar concerns.
Former President Muhammadu Buhari repeatedly insisted that terrorism should not be rewarded.
Former Chief of Army Staff and Nigeria’s Ambassador to Benin Republic, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai (Rtd), has publicly argued that paying ransoms fuels insecurity.
Former Chief of Defence Staff, General Lucky Irabor (Rtd), similarly warned that ransom payments strengthen criminal enterprises and prolong insecurity.
These are not uninformed opinions.
They are positions informed by years of direct engagement with security challenges.
The truth is simple! Every concession made to terrorists increases their appetite for more concessions.
Every ransom paid becomes seed capital for future operations and every successful abduction becomes an advertisement for future kidnappings.
This is why many countries reject negotiations that directly empower terrorist networks.
Yet, rejecting negotiations does not mean rejecting compassion.
It does not mean abandoning victims.
It does not mean government is folding its arms.
Indeed, available evidence shows that both the Oyo State Government and the Federal Government have continued to work collaboratively toward securing the release of the abducted victims.
Governor Seyi Makinde has repeatedly assured residents that efforts are ongoing.
Security agencies have maintained operational engagements and intelligence activities continue.
Stakeholder consultations remain activea and the fact that every operational detail is not disclosed to the public does not mean nothing is being done.
In security matters, silence is often a strong strategy. Operations are not conducted through newspaper headlines.
Rescue missions are not coordinated through social media commentaries.
Intelligence gathering does not thrive on public disclosures.
The loudest drum in the village rarely catches the biggest fish.
This reality appears lost on some critics but one of the most unfortunate aspects of the attack on Speaker Ogundoyin is the insinuation that he was merely acting as an image maker for Governor Makinde.
Such an allegation ignores the constitutional role of public leaders to provide clarity and perspective during periods of crisis.
Leadership sometimes requires saying what people do not want to hear.
A physician who refuses to prescribe poison is not heartless.
A pilot who declines a dangerous shortcut is not indifferent to his passengers.
A captain who refuses to steer a ship toward visible rocks is not abandoning his crew.
Likewise, a public official who questions the wisdom of negotiating with terrorists is not abandoning victims, he is simply attempting to prevent future tragedies.
The emotions surrounding the Oriire abduction are understandable.
The pain is real.
The fear is real.
The anxiety is real.
But public policy cannot be built upon fear. It must be built upon reason.
The tears of today’s victims must not become the foundation for tomorrow’s disasters.
History teaches us that terrorism thrives when governments appear weak and retreats when governments remain firm.
Nigeria’s security challenges require courage, coordination, intelligence and persistence with the collective support of the people regardless of political or religious affiliations.
They do not require panic neither do they require sensationalism, and they certainly do not require unfair attacks on public officials who are grappling with difficult decisions under extraordinarily challenging circumstances.
As Oyo State continues to pray and work for the safe return of the abducted teachers and pupils, all stakeholders must resist the temptation to score political points from human tragedy.
The responsibility of leadership is not to scream popular emotions.
The responsibility of leadership is to protect lives, preserve public order and defend the authority of the state.
That is precisely the context within which Speaker Adebo Ogundoyin’s remarks should be understood.
In times of crisis, wisdom is often mistaken for weakness.
History, however, has a way of vindicating those who choose principle over panic, logic over emotion.
May the abducted teachers and pupils return safely.
May their families find comfort and strength.
And may public discourse be guided not merely by emotion, but by the wisdom required to secure lasting peace and security for all of us.
Ibrahim Adekola writes from Ibadan.