THIS DAWN — The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, has disclosed that the rescue of 38 abducted worshippers in Eruku, Ekiti Local Government Area of Kwara State, was the outcome of coordinated engagement between security agencies and the armed kidnappers.
Onanuga made the revelation on Prime Time, a flagship programme on Arise Television.
He was addressing concerns about the government’s counter-kidnapping strategy and the growing sophistication of criminal gangs.
According to him, operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigerian military jointly handled the operation.
He claimed they leveraged on intelligence-gathering systems capable of tracking the movements, communications and operational patterns of the criminal group responsible for the abduction.
He explained that the agencies monitored developments in real time before establishing direct contact with the kidnappers.
Watch the video clip here.
Onanuga stated that security operatives reached out to the bandits, issued clear demands for the unconditional release of all captives, and made it evident that failure to comply would attract severe consequences.
“They made contact with the bandits to secure the release of the captives.
“Security agencies have systems for tracking these criminals, allowing them to monitor developments in real time.
“They reached out to the kidnappers and demanded the release of the victims, and they complied, aware of the consequences of defying government directives,” he said.
The presidential aide argued that the swift release of all 38 worshippers demonstrated the renewed capacity of Nigeria’s security architecture under President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
He stressed that while the government prefers decisive and pre-emptive operations, it will deploy any lawful and strategic approach necessary to safeguard lives.
Onanuga also dismissed speculations that ransom payment facilitated the release, insisting that the abductors acted out of fear of imminent military action.
He assured Nigerians that the government is intensifying its crackdown on kidnapping networks nationwide and strengthening intelligence coordination among agencies.
The incident in Eruku, which initially sparked widespread outrage and fear across communities in Kwara and neighbouring states, has reignited public debate about Nigeria’s escalating insecurity.
However, the presidency maintains that recent developments show “a more assertive and intelligence-driven counterterrorism strategy now taking shape.”
What Onanuga’s comment implies
Read excerpts of the brief interview below:
QUESTION: Is Bayo Onanuga saying by implication that the DSS, federal government knows who the bandits are, where they are or how to find them, yet doing nothing to stop the menace?
ANSWER: Bayo Onanuga’s statement does raise a serious and unavoidable implication, but it must be unpacked carefully and responsibly.
By saying that the DSS and the military “tracked the criminals in real time,” “made contact with them,” and that the kidnappers complied because they were “aware of the consequences of defying government directives,” Onanuga clearly suggests that:
-
Security agencies know how to locate or monitor these bandit groups.
-
They have channels — formal or informal — to reach them directly.
-
They can exert pressure strong enough to compel compliance.
These statements naturally lead many Nigerians to ask: If you can track and contact them, why are these groups still operating freely?
Is the government is “doing nothing”?
QUESTION: Does this mean that the government is “doing nothing”?
ANSWER: Not necessarily — but it exposes a contradiction.
There are a few possible explanations that analysts and security experts often discuss:
One, tracking a criminal group does not always mean the state can easily eliminate them.
Bandits operate in forested regions with difficult terrain. Intelligence gathering is often easier than launching clean, risk-free kinetic operations.
Two, security agencies may be using monitored channels to prevent killings during hostage situations.
Once contact is established, the priority becomes saving lives, sometimes limiting options for immediate force.
Three, there is an ongoing debate about political, logistical or bureaucratic constraints.
Some experts argue that lack of political will, corruption within local networks, inadequate military equipment, or fragmented command structures often hinder decisive action.
Four, negotiation-based approaches sometimes reflect a short-term strategy.
Conclusion
QUESTION: Were there no viable options?
ANSWER: Governments worldwide occasionally negotiate indirectly with armed groups when civilian lives are at immediate risk — but this does not replace long-term counterinsurgency.
However, the public concern is legitimate.
Onanuga’s comments highlight a contradiction that fuels public frustration:
-
If the government can track bandits well enough to negotiate with them, why can’t it dismantle their networks?
-
Why do bandits still impose taxes, run forced labour camps, or carry out mass abductions unchallenged?
These questions speak to credibility, accountability, and public trust, and the presidency may need to clarify how “real-time tracking” aligns with persistent insecurity across multiple states.
