The sentencing of four kidnappers to death by hanging or lethal injection by the Edo State Special Criminal Court is both a significant judicial development and an opportunity for Nigeria to confront the deeper roots of the kidnapping crisis. Given that kidnapping, in its ugliest forms, has become a booming industry afflicting society and the psyche of the average Nigerian, few will question the drastic measures Edo State and some others are taking to overcome the menace. Nonetheless, it is important to address the problem at its roots, rather than merely giving the impression that the government has gone tough on kidnappers.

Notably, while the country retains the death penalty in its statutes for certain crimes, implementing the sentences has been delayed largely due to the absence of political will on the part of governors who must sign the death warrant. Presided over by Justice Aigbona Momodu, the court convicted Marvellous Isaac, Wisdom Michael, Rufus Emete Michael and Gift Raphael on an 11-count charge bordering on kidnapping, conspiracy, armed robbery, cultism and unlawful possession of firearms. The case arose from the daylight abduction of a woman at the Vegetable Market, along Airport Road, Benin City, on June 14, 2026.
  
The Edo State Special Criminal Court was established on July 1, 2026, to handle kidnapping, cultism and related violent-crime cases and to expedite their prosecution. Its maiden kidnapping judgment is therefore significant. It demonstrates that specialised judicial intervention can produce relatively swift resolution of serious criminal cases. Yet the death sentence inevitably raises a wider and more difficult question: Will the severity of punishment, by itself, deter kidnapping in Nigeria?

There is a compelling argument for deterrence. Kidnapping has become an organised and lucrative criminal enterprise in many parts of the country. Its victims are no longer confined to the wealthy or prominent. Traders, farmers, travellers, students, schoolchildren, professionals and ordinary families are increasingly exposed to the menace.

The recent abduction of prospective National Youth Service Corps members illustrates the frightening transformation of the crime. On October 1, gunmen reportedly attacked two buses carrying prospective corps members travelling from Ibadan to their orientation camps in Abia and Akwa Ibom states along the Owerri-Onitsha Road in Imo State. 
 
Reports from the victims’ families said that 20 young graduates were abducted and that the kidnappers initially demanded N50 million for each victim—a total of N1 billion. Subsequent reports said the demand was reduced to N5 million per victim.
 
Even as reports confirm the rescue of the corps members by security officials, the reported ransom demand exposes the economics of kidnapping. The families of the corps members have revealed they paid ransom to secure the release of their children, contrary to the Police’s position. Human beings have been turned into commodities. The higher the ransom, the greater the incentive for criminal gangs to continue the trade. This is why the Edo judgment deserves attention beyond the courtroom.
 
The punishment imposed on the four convicts may appear severe, even draconian, to some. But the court itself indicated that the prescribed law left it without discretion on the applicable punishment. Justice Momodu reportedly stated that his “hands are tied” because the law prescribed the sentence. The convicts, of course, retain their constitutional right of appeal. The judgment is therefore not necessarily the final stage of the judicial process.

There is also a legitimate and continuing debate about capital punishment. Amnesty International remains opposed to the death penalty and describes Nigeria as a retentionist country because the punishment remains available in law. It has also reported legislative initiatives in Nigeria aimed at abolition.

That debate should not be suppressed. A civilised criminal justice system must be concerned not only with protecting society from dangerous criminals but also with due process, fair trial and the possibility of judicial error. A death sentence is irreversible, making the integrity of the judicial process particularly important.
 
But the debate over abolition must not obscure another reality: Nigeria has a duty to protect its citizens from those who abduct, terrorise and hold them for ransom.  A country cannot allow kidnapping to become a normal means of livelihood.

The more fundamental problem is not simply that the prescribed punishment may be inappropriate; it is that the probability of detection and conviction is often insufficient to make the punishment an effective deterrent.

A kidnapper should have every reason to believe that if he commits the crime, he will be identified, arrested, prosecuted and punished. That is the point at which Nigeria’s anti-kidnapping strategy must change. Nigeria does not merely need harsher sentences. It needs to destroy the business model of kidnapping.

The first requirement is intelligence-led policing. Security agencies at federal, state and local levels must know who the kidnappers are, where they operate, who provides information to them, where they keep their victims, who negotiates their ransoms and who finances their operations. Intelligence cannot remain an afterthought, activated only after abduction has occurred. It must be the foundation of prevention.
 
Second, Nigeria must strengthen policing at the grassroots. The renewed debate about state police deserves serious consideration, provided that any such system is professionally recruited, adequately trained and subject to effective constitutional and institutional safeguards. Security personnel who understand local communities and terrain are potentially better placed to detect unusual movements and obtain timely intelligence.

Third, the country’s forests and other difficult-to-access areas must no longer be treated as security blind spots. Kidnappers require places in which to hide their victims and evade law enforcement. Sustained surveillance and coordinated security operations are necessary to deny criminal gangs these sanctuaries. The reactivation of forest guards by the federal government should be total and result-oriented.
 
Fourth, the government must follow the money. Kidnapping for ransom is an economic crime. The people who collect, transfer, conceal or launder ransom proceeds are part of the criminal ecosystem. Financial intelligence should therefore be directed not merely at the gunmen who abduct victims but also at the financiers, intermediaries and facilitators who make the enterprise profitable. The ultimate objective should be to make kidnapping a high-risk, low-reward enterprise.
 
Fifth, prosecution must be swift and certain. The establishment of specialised courts, as demonstrated by the Edo initiative, could help reduce the delays that have historically bedevilled criminal trials. But specialised courts must be supported by competent investigation, professional prosecution, adequate judges, modern forensic capacity and proper case management. Justice delayed is not merely justice denied to victims. In serious criminal cases, it can also weaken the deterrent value of the law.

Sixth, the State must deal with the networks that facilitate kidnapping. Kidnapping syndicates do not operate in isolation. They require information about potential victims, movements and communities. Those who knowingly plan, finance or facilitate kidnapping must be pursued with the same determination as those who physically carry out the abductions.
 
Seventh, Nigeria must urgently improve security along major transport corridors. The reported abduction of prospective corps members travelling between states is particularly disturbing because it demonstrates that ordinary movement across the country can expose citizens to grave danger.
 
Road security cannot depend solely on occasional patrols after an attack. There must be effective intelligence, early warning, rapid response and close cooperation among security agencies, transport operators and host communities.
  
The situation in parts of the North-West and North-East is even more alarming, where kidnapping and the abduction of schoolchildren have become regular features of the security crisis. The continued vulnerability of children and other civilians should be unacceptable in a country that claims the capacity to protect its citizens.
  
The Edo judgment should therefore not be reduced to a debate about whether four kidnappers deserve the death penalty.  The larger question is whether Nigeria is prepared to create a criminal justice and security system capable of making kidnapping unprofitable.
 
Nigeria must make kidnapping difficult to organise, difficult to finance and almost certain to end in arrest and lawful punishment. Until that happens, the death penalty—or any other severe sanction—will remain only one part of an unfinished response to a national menace.