Which is of lesser consequence: Payment of ransom or killing of victims?

The poor governance in Nigeria has created all manner of criminality in society. Everybody points to the activities of politicians that gave rise to the Islamic sect, Boko Haram insurgency in 2009.

There is still the allegation that the current wave of banditry and kidnapping began after the 2015 general election. The narrative goes that some politicians had assembled dangerous elements from Niger and Chad, and had armed them with dangerous weapons ready for full scale war should the then president Goodluck Jonathan refused to relinquish power.

It was said that when Jonathan intuitively said that his ambition did not worth the blood of any Nigerian, and consequently conceded defeat, those who had engaged mercenaries to do war were carried away with the joy of victory and forgot to settle the dangerous elements and also did not mop up the weapons in their possession.

These mercenaries were said to have decided to use what they have to get what they do not have. They were said to have taken over every forest across the country, kidnapping and demanding hefty ransom in return.

The high rate of unemployment in the country and worsening poverty situation have also combined to give impetus to criminality.

Moreover, when the Federal Government declared it was going to pursue a dangerous policy of issuing passport to foreigners when they had already entered the country, it inadvertently opened its doors for more terrorists.

When the government, in the name of ECOWAS protocol on free movement decided to leave the borders open for all manner of elements, including herdsmen from neighbouring countries to move in with their cattle, with dan