Not a day passes in Nigeria without a kidnapping. Schools are raided, worshippers are snatched from prayer halls, and families empty their savings to ransom loved ones. Kidnapping has become what former President Olusegun Obasanjo grimly describes as a “business.” Against this backdrop of relentless terror, Islamic cleric Sheikh Ahmad Gumi has made a stunning declaration: some kidnappings are more acceptable than others.
During a BBC interview on Tuesday, the Islamic cleric made a statement that has since reverberated across Nigerian social and political discourse. When discussing the country’s security crisis, Gumi argued that terrorists kidnapping children represents a “lesser evil” compared to killing soldiers.
“Saying that kidnapping children is a lesser evil than killing your soldiers, definitely it is a lesser. Killing is worse, but they are all evil. It’s just a lesser evil. Not all evils are of the same magnitude,” the former army captain stated.
He reinforced this position by citing the mass abduction in Kebbi State: “So it’s a lesser evil than, like, what happened in Kebbi. They abducted children, and they were released. They didn’t kill them.”
When pressed about what message this sends to parents of kidnapped children, Gumi responded: “It (kidnapping) is an evil, and we pray that they escape.”
Nigeria’s kidnapping epidemic has reached catastrophic proportions. The statistics tell a grim story: not a single day passes without a kidnapping incident, mostly for ransom. Just weeks ago, more than 315 people—including 303 students and 12 teachers—were abducted in Niger State. While the Federal Government announced the release of 100 students on December 7, the trauma inflicted on these children and their families is immeasurable.
Northern Nigeria has become particularly vulnerable, with terrorists systematically targeting schoolchildren and worshippers across states, including Niger, Kwara, Kogi, Bauchi, Adamawa, Kaduna, Benue, Nasarawa, Plateau, Borno, Katsina, Taraba, Gombe, Yobe, and Kano.
The Negotiation Defence
Gumi defended his controversial stance by advocating for negotiation with bandits, a position he has maintained consistently despite public criticism. He challenged the very premise of refusing to negotiate with terrorists.
“That word ‘we don’t negotiate,’ I don’t know where they got it from. It’s not in the Bible. It’s not in the Quran. In fact, it’s not even in practice. Everybody’s negotiating with outlaws, non-state actors, everybody,” he argued, adding: “We negotiate for peace and our strategic interests. If negotiation will bring stoppage to bloodshed, we will do it.”
The cleric emphasised that his past engagements with bandits were conducted transparently: “I go there with the authorities. I don’t go there alone. And I go there with the press.”
He revealed that his last direct meetings with bandit groups occurred in 2021, when he attempted to bring various factions together. However, he claimed the federal government “was not keen” on the initiative, and he withdrew completely once these groups were officially designated as terrorists.
The Root Cause Argument
Gumi attempted to provide context for the banditry crisis by characterising it as an existential struggle for Fulani herdsmen, whom he distinguishes from urban Fulani populations.
“They are fighting an existential war… Their life revolves around cattle. In fact, they inherit them. They’ll tell you, ‘This cow I inherited from my grandfather.’ They are mostly Fulani herdsmen, not the Fulani town, because you have to differentiate between the two,” he explained.
He also argued that Nigeria’s military cannot bear the security burden alone: “We need a robust army… but even the military is saying our role in this civil unrest, in this criminality, is 95% kinetic. The rest is the government, the politics, and the locals. The military cannot do everything.”
Opinion: The Dangerous Calculus of ‘Lesser Evils’
While Gumi’s intentions may be rooted in pragmatism and a desire to prevent bloodshed, his rhetoric is deeply problematic and potentially dangerous.
First, ranking atrocities on a scale of acceptability, even when acknowledging both as evil, risks normalising the “lesser” crime. When a respected religious figure suggests that kidnapping children is preferable to any alternative, he provides ideological cover for those who commit such acts. This is not merely an academic exercise in moral philosophy; it’s a statement that will be heard, interpreted, and potentially acted upon by both criminals and policymakers.
Second, his framing ignores the profound psychological trauma inflicted on kidnapped children. These are not inanimate objects to be borrowed and returned; they are young minds scarred by the terror of abduction, the uncertainty of captivity, and the violence often witnessed or experienced during their ordeal. Some never make it home. Others return fundamentally changed. To dismiss this as a “lesser evil” because they weren’t killed betrays a troubling disconnect from the human cost of kidnapping.
Third, the comparison itself is ethically flawed. Soldiers, whatever our views on military strategy or government policy, are trained combatants who have chosen a profession that inherently involves risk. Children in schools are innocent civilians who should be protected above all else. Creating a hierarchy that implicitly devalues military personnel while ostensibly defending children actually devalues both groups.
Fourth, Gumi’s defence of negotiation, while raising valid questions about pragmatic engagement with non-state actors, becomes tainted by his “lesser evil” framing. Negotiation as a tactical tool to save lives is one thing; negotiation premised on accepting certain forms of terrorism as tolerable is quite another.
The Broader Failure
To be fair, Gumi is correct that Nigeria’s banditry crisis cannot be solved through military force alone. The underlying issues poverty, marginalisation, resource competition, and governance failures—require comprehensive political and economic solutions. His call for distinguishing between different Fulani communities and addressing root causes deserves serious consideration.
However, these legitimate points are overshadowed by rhetoric that appears to excuse inexcusable acts. In a nation where kidnapping has become industrialized, where criminal enterprises have refined their business models around the abduction of innocents, what Nigeria needs is unequivocal moral condemnation, not gradations of acceptability.
Religious leaders occupy positions of immense influence in Nigerian society. Their words carry weight that can either unite communities in resistance to evil or fracture moral consensus. When Sheikh Gumi suggests that some forms of terrorism are more tolerable than others, he contributes to a dangerous normalization of violence against the most vulnerable.
What Nigeria Actually Needs
Rather than debating which evil is “lesser,” Nigeria needs a comprehensive strategy that includes:
- Robust military and intelligence operations against terrorist networks
- Community-based security initiatives that empower local populations
- Economic development programs that address the root causes of banditry
- Educational campaigns that protect schools while keeping them open
- Justice system reforms that ensure accountability for kidnappers
- Regional cooperation to disrupt criminal networks across state boundaries
Most importantly, Nigeria needs moral clarity from its leaders—religious, political, and traditional. Every form of terrorism, whether it targets soldiers, schoolchildren, or civilians, must be condemned unequivocally. There are no “lesser evils” in the kidnapping of innocents.
Sheikh Gumi may believe he is being pragmatic, but pragmatism without moral foundation is merely opportunism. In the fight against terrorism, Nigeria cannot afford leaders who grade atrocities on a curve.
