“Choosing to be curious is choosing to be vulnerable because it requires us to surrender to uncertainty” – Brené Brown
The recent abduction and subsequent rescue of schoolchildren and their teachers in Oyo State have illuminated a complex interplay of intrigue and politics, extending beyond the initial shock and grief.
While mass school abductions typically elicit a unified humanitarian response, the protracted 56-day captivity and the specific circumstances surrounding the Oyo incident, including the governor’s call for an international investigation, have ignited a more divisive socio-political discourse. The timing of the abduction, occurring less than 48 hours after Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State announced his presidential aspirations, and the remarkably smooth rescue operation, which yielded no casualties among the children and offered no details on the perpetrators, have fueled widespread speculation.
Concurrently, a narrative championed by some northern leaders asserts a disparity in the federal government’s response to rescue operations. This perspective raises concerns about potential tribalism, regional bias, and the concept of ‘reciprocal’ government attention. The question arises whether the federal government and security agencies genuinely exhibited differential urgency between the Oyo case and other kidnappings across the nation, a perception amplified by reactions from families and interest groups in the North.
While celebrating the Oyo children’s safe return, various northern organisations, including the Northern Elders Forum and the Arewa Consultative Forum, alongside opposition politicians, have urged President Tinubu to emulate the intelligence-led operation that freed the Oyo victims in other states like Borno, Kwara, and Kaduna, where numerous individuals remain in captivity. The focus has quickly shifted to the plight of these other abducted citizens.
In Borno State, for instance, parents of 78 students still held by Boko Haram expressed renewed hope but also deepened frustration, citing the prolonged silence regarding their children’s fate since a separate attack on the same May 15, 2026, which saw 42 pupils abducted. The Arewa Consultative Forum has called for intensified efforts to secure the release of all Nigerians in captivity, advocating that the Oyo rescue should catalyse a sustained nationwide campaign against kidnappers.
The central argument from many northern leaders centres on a perceived difference in federal responsiveness. They suggest that abductions in southern or western regions tend to trigger immediate, forceful federal intervention and political solidarity. In contrast, the recurring nature of mass kidnappings in northern states is argued to have resulted in a more institutionalised and slower response, often treated as a logistical challenge rather than an immediate national emergency, as was highlighted by the Oyo incident. This has led to calls for ‘reciprocal attention,’ demanding that the federal government match the political will and resource allocation seen in other regions.
The debate surrounding the Oyo incident is less about tactical military prowess and more about political optics and the swiftness of executive action. Accusations of tribalism or regionalism in rescue operations are often fueled by media amplification, where southern-dominated media spaces allegedly give disproportionate coverage to local incidents. At the same time, northern abductions are treated more as statistics. This, in turn, is believed to influence the federal government’s response to public pressure. Furthermore, allegations of slow resource allocation arise when resources are perceived to be more readily allocated to regions with a geopolitical alignment with the ruling elite. Political rhetoric also plays a significant role, with the language used by officials during crises being scrutinised; a passionate address for one region versus a perfunctory statement for another can easily foster narratives of marginalisation.
However, operational realities often challenge these perceptions. Security experts and federal defenders argue that differences in rescue outcomes stem from structural and geographical factors rather than ethnic or geopolitical bias. The vast, arid landscapes and extensive, unpoliced forests in the North, spanning thousands of square kilometres, provide ideal hideouts for kidnappers, making tracking inherently more localised. The dynamics of banditry in the North are complex, with figures like Sheikh Gumi sometimes perceived as protecting kidnappers’ interests, adding to the confusion in security efforts. In contrast, the Oyo case saw a unified front from religious, traditional, and political leaders, coupled with direct and focused media coverage that did not condone negotiations.
Moreover, the prevalence of highly decentralised, heavily armed syndicates in the North, operating primarily for financial gain and supported by deeply entrenched local informant networks, exacerbates banditry. While politically or ideologically motivated groups with clearer command structures for negotiation exist in the North, the economic dimension has driven the frequency and volume of rapid, simultaneous attacks, straining military and police logistics. The piecemeal nature of these incidents poses significant security challenges, impeding focused military action.
Ultimately, for the sake of national peace and unity, there is a pressing need to de-escalate narratives of bias in the pursuit of criminal elements. The perception of bias in rescue efforts poses significant dangers. When citizens feel the government prioritises certain areas or ethnic groups over others in safeguarding their children, it weakens national unity and can compel communities to form self-defence groups, thereby escalating existing security challenges.
To address this disparity, the federal government and its security agencies must commit to complete transparency in their operational communications. The safety of every child, regardless of their location, should elicit the same level of national concern and require a comparable elite tactical response. By detaching rescue missions from geopolitical considerations, the state can rebuild public trust and present a united front against terrorism.
It is important to acknowledge the military’s assessment that the recent operation’s success stemmed from a fundamental shift in strategy, moving from reactive measures to a meticulously coordinated, intelligence-driven approach. This was not an isolated effort by a single entity but a large-scale collaborative undertaking, orchestrated by the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) and the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), which leveraged the unique capabilities of various security forces.
Instead of attempting a rapid, high-risk raid on the terrorists’ stronghold that could endanger the children, the security forces dedicated over a month to systematically dismantling the perpetrators’ support network.
A crucial factor in altering the situation was the government’s steadfast refusal to negotiate under duress. The abductors had demanded the release of a prominent terrorist leader currently undergoing prosecution. However, the Federal Government rigidly adhered to a policy of no ransom and no concessions. This firm stance, coupled with robust tracking efforts, effectively removed the financial and political incentives that motivated the kidnappers.
Ultimately, politicising matters that should be treated as straightforward criminal offences is counterproductive and contributes to the proliferation of lawlessness within our society. The bottom line of it all should be to rescue all kidnapped citizens irrespective of the geopolitical location. May divine intervention guide our thoughts.
