By Alfred Reynolds:
President of Reynolds Institute of Criminology (RIC)
A very famous international media (radio, television, and newspaper combined) wrote the following: “Oyo State in Nigeria is currently the center of a major security crisis following the abduction of 46 people — mostly children and teachers — by armed bandits. The coordinated attack prompted an ongoing indefinite teachers’ strike and state-wide school closures.” After reading this, we need to take note on the term “armed bandits” that the media has used to explain that unfortunate event, which has reached the ears of the most powerful political elites in the hierarchy of the Nigerian government. Of course, the same term of “armed bandits” has been used and continue to be used on multiple occasions by members of the civilian population, Muslim and non-Muslim leaders as well as law enforcement leaders and powerful government officials to describe that situation.
In fact, on May 15, 2026, gunmen raided three schools (Baptist Nursery and Primary in Yawota, Community Grammar School, and L.A. Primary School) simultaneously in the Ahoro Esinele community of the Oriire district. There were 39 students (ranging from toddlers to 16-year-olds) and seven teachers. They were all kidnapped and taken to the nearby forest by violent attackers who beheaded a mathematics teacher, Michael Oyedokun, shortly after the attack. Despite a joint rescue operation by soldiers, police and local vigilante groups, that operation was quickly disrupted after they encountered improvised explosive devices planted by the attackers, leaving several soldiers and officers badly wounded.
In light of that incident and the multiple acts those perpetrators have committed in a matter of days, what term should we use to categorize those kidnappers? Should we call them bandits? Or should we call them terrorists? Which of these two terms best fits the characterization of these violent attackers? For us, to better choose which term is correct, let’s look at the etymological definitions of the terms bandit and terrorist. First, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word bandit is used for the first time in 1611, and it is borrowed from the Italian word bandito, which means literally: “one who is banished or exiled.” Basically, a bandit is a marauder or just an outlaw who lives his life by plundering someone from his personal belongings. A bandit is usually a robber, a purse snatcher, or a person who typically belongs to an armed gang that attacks travellers. It can also be an armed thief who ambushes people in isolated or lawless areas. Whereas a terrorist is an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion by practicing or involving violent acts of terror. In fact, the word terrorist was first used in 1794 to describe an individual who uses violence, intimidation, or the threat of harm against non-combatants to create widespread fear and force a government or population into meeting specific political, religious, or ideological demands. The act of a terrorist is defined by the type of violence in its core: first, we have coercion and intimidation because its primary goal is to manipulate, coerce, or instil terror in a civilian population or government; secondly, we have ideological motive because the acts, despite there maybe talks of ransom, are fuelled by political, religious, environmental, or social agendas, rather than personal or economic motives; lastly, we have a target selection considering violence is typically directed at innocent victims, non-combatants, or civilian infrastructure.
Let’s go a little further in analyzing the words bandit and terrorist relating to the law. What does Nigeria’s Criminal Code Act say about bandits and terrorists? In fact, the Criminal Code Act of Nigeria does not explicitly define or contain a standalone offence for the word “bandit” or “banditry”; these terms are used broadly as descriptive labels for groups of individuals who collectively engage in a composite mix of violent crimes. Because there is no single legislative provision for “banditry,” Nigerian offenders are charged according to the specific constituent crimes they commit. Under the Criminal Code Act, these underlying offenses typically include: armed robbery, which is punishable under laws such as the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act; kidnapping for ransom, which is addressed via State laws and Criminal Code amendments; cattle rustling, which is prosecuted as theft and receiving stolen property; and, finally, rioting and unlawful assembly, which is covered under Chapter 10 of the Criminal Code, which punishes groups using or threatening violence to disturb the peace. We must note that the Criminal Code Act of Nigeria does not directly address terrorism in its core statutes. It only addresses the word bandit or “banditry,” so it could be effectively treated as a composite of various violent crimes rather than a single statutory offence because prosecutions rely on the specific evidence of the violent, extortionist, or destructive acts carried out by the gang. As for the Penal Code of Nigeria, depending on the specific criminal act committed by a “bandit,” perpetrators are charged under the following core statutes: robbery and armed robbery, which are charged under Sections 298 and 299 when individuals use violence or deadly weapons to steal; and kidnapping, which is prosecuted under Section 273 (Punishment for wrongful confinement) and Section 274.
As you can see, a terrorist cannot be charged under the Criminal Code Act nor under the Penal Code of Nigeria because neither of them addresses specifically what constitutes a terrorist act or terrorism. It is understood why many within the Nigerian civilian population, as well as the hierarchy of law enforcement and government officials, like to describe those violent acts that are committed by those perpetrators as acts that are committed by bandits, not acts that are committed by terrorists. However, there is no doubt that these two terms are clearly defined in their core by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Nevertheless, there is hope in defining who can be called a terrorist or what constitutes an act of terrorism in the Nigerian law.
If terrorism is not defined or addressed under the Penal Code, which primarily covers general criminal offenses in northern Nigeria, nor the Criminal Code, which covers offenses in southern Nigeria, terrorism – while historically treated purely as organized rural criminality – and bandit factions are legally prosecuted under the Terrorism Prevention Act, Section 1(3), when their actions are deemed to incite terror or coerce the government. In a nutshell, in view of that law, to be considered as an act of terrorism, any terrorist act should be directed, incited or must coerce the government of Nigeria, not against the civilian population. Consequently, a “terrorist” is legally defined by their involvement in these actions, which includes planning, financing, supporting, or facilitating such acts. The law broadly covers direct and indirect participation, such as harbouring offenders, providing logistics, or assisting in planning. However, due to the escalating scale of violence, the Nigerian government officially designated bandit groups operating in the country as terrorist organizations in November 2021. This reclassification allows the state to prosecute bandits rather than treating them as ordinary criminals. Whereas legal scholars and policymakers in Nigeria have continually debated this lack of direct legal definition. Because many bandit syndicates are not politically motivated insurgents but rather economic crime syndicates. There are ongoing legislative pushes — including amendments to the Terrorism Act by the Nigerian Senate — to classify their specific behaviours, such as kidnapping, with strictly mandated and harsher penalties.
Because of this lack of direct legal definition in using the terms bandit and terrorist by the Nigerian population, law enforcement and government officials in general, we are wondering how this blunder will affect the person or the group that will commit such acts or the person or group that will witness such acts? In fact, Albert Camus – a French philosopher – wrote this profound concept that originates from a 1944 essay: “To misname things is to add to the misfortune of this world.” True. Camus warned us against the dangers of propaganda, euphemisms, and careless language. According to many, when we fail to call a spade a spade — whether by using vague terms to mask harsh truths, or mislabelling complex social, political, or personal realities — we strip away our ability to address those issues. By clarifying our language and calling things by their exact names, we empower ourselves to understand and confront the true nature of our problems. That ongoing set of essays titled “Lettres à un ami Allemand” (Letters to a German Friend) culminates in a book. These four eloquent, open letters to an imagined former German friend were written to understand how a cultured nation succumbed to Nazism. They outline Camus’ early philosophical foundations, firmly rejecting violence and tyranny while advocating for freedom, morality, and justice. In this context, is it wise to take upon ourselves, our responsibility – based on our experience and knowledge in the field – to warn the Nigerian authorities openly not to let Nigeria, a beautiful nation as it is, not to fall to Terrorism by calling a bandit, a bandit and a terrorist, a terrorist? Already, mass school abductions have plagued Nigeria for over a decade, originating primarily with insurgent groups like Boko Haram in northern regions, such as the infamous 2014 Chibok girls’ abduction.
Mass kidnappings by armed groups have become a serious security challenge in Nigeria in recent years, with criminal gangs exploiting weak security to target travellers, students, and rural communities for cash payments. Schools are often targeted, although such attacks are rare in the southwest of the country. Just last month, 17 Nigerian police officers and several soldiers were killed when suspected terrorists from Boko Haram and ISWAP launched a coordinated, overnight assault on the Nigerian Army Special Forces School in Buni Yadi, Yobe State. Again, this month, retired Nigerian Army Major General Rabe Abubakar died in terrorist captivity after being abducted alongside his wife by gunmen on May 30, 2026, in Katsina State. The Katsina State government attributed his death to complications from diabetes and hypertension. The kidnapping and subsequent death have drawn widespread national attention and highlighted ongoing regional security challenges. Should the major general die because of diabetes and hypertension, not because of terrorism? What if he were not kidnapped by terrorists? Would he die? Thus, it is fair to say that the major general died because of an act of terrorism, not because of diabetes and hypertension.
The Nigerian government needs to be more proactive, not reactive, when it comes to terrorism. The Nigerian government should not send a group of officers to be trained in counterterrorism strategies as a reaction to a group of terrorists who kidnapped 39 students and seven teachers. There should have been a group of well-trained officers to attack those terrorists immediately when such an act was being committed. Every state in Nigeria should have such counterterrorism groups with agents, from multiple government agencies, who are consistently trained and well-equipped for these types of security threats. By being proactive, the Nigerian government will understand that counterterrorism strategies encompass a range of methods aimed at preventing and responding to terrorist threats, including intelligence gathering, community engagement, and international cooperation.
Counterterrorism strategies are multifaceted and require a combination of intelligence, community engagement, military action, and international cooperation. By addressing both immediate threats and the underlying conditions that foster terrorism, these strategies aim to create a safer and more resilient society. As the nature of terrorism evolves, so too must the approaches to counter it, ensuring that they remain effective in a changing landscape. Remember, in the next 25 years, Nigeria will face more acute population growth, projected to reach approximately 400 to 440 million people, roughly doubling its current size. This explosive demographic growth will make Nigeria the third most populous country in the world, surpassing the United States. As the population grows, there will be more crime in both large and small cities. Is Nigeria ready for this growth?
Alfred Reynolds is currently a State Senate candidate for District 12 in the State of Florida (USA). He is a U.S. Army veteran and a former law enforcement officer working in different states as a gang investigator. He is a professor of law studies in Polk County, Florida, and taught criminal justice at the Community College of Vermont. He studied international and transnational law at the University of Laval in Quebec (Canada). He published a book titled “Child Soldiers: Victims and Aggressors,” which is available on Amazon.
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
0
