National Security and the Criminality of Sympathizing with Terrorism

By Okoi Obono-Obla

National Security and the Criminality of Sympathizing with Terrorism

The recent Nigerian Air Force strike on a Boko Haram enclave in Jilili Market, Gubio Local Government Area of Borno State, and the reactions from certain sections of the media and political class, reveal the uncomfortable truth that insurgents have sympathizers—closet or otherwise. These supporters must understand that enabling, facilitating, aiding, or abetting terrorism are serious offences under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

Sections 13, 15, 17, 20, and 26 of the Act criminalize various forms of support for terrorism:

– Section 13: Soliciting and giving support to terrorist groups.
– Section 15: Provision of training and instruction to terrorists.
– Section 17: Provision of devices (weapons, explosives) to terrorists.
– Section 20: Provision of facilities in support of terrorist acts.
– Section 26: Conspiracy, aiding, and abetting.

These provisions ensure that any form of facilitation or enablement of terrorism attracts severe penalties. Therefore, media houses, social media influencers, or politicians who politicize military operations—mourning soldiers when killed by terrorists but turning against the same military when it acts to protect society—are, by implication, complicit in terrorism.

Even in advanced democracies, national security takes precedence. For instance, President Donald Trump once threatened action against media leaks that compromised U.S. military rescue operations after a pilot ejected from an aircraft shot down by Iranian forces. This underscores the universal principle that military operations are integral to national security, and in such matters, fundamental human rights may temporarily take the back seat.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria, in Asari Dokubo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007), captured this vividly:

“Where national security is threatened or there is the real likelihood of it being threatened, human rights or the individual rights must be suspended until national security is guaranteed. The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, democratic country is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or right.”

This precedent affirms that the survival of the state overrides individual liberties when faced with existential threats.

The Case for Reform:

The time has come for the National Assembly of Nigeria to amend the Armed Forces Act, 2004 to strengthen the legal framework against terrorism. Any individual captured by the military in operational regions or battlefronts—where terrorism, insurgency, and banditry are intense—while wearing military camouflage, handling military hardware, drones, or collaborating with insurgents, should be treated as enemy combatants. Such persons, along with their civilian collaborators, conspirators, aiders, abettors, and facilitators, must be arraigned before a Military General Court Martial or even Field Court Martials.

Enough is enough. Terrorism is not merely a national security challenge; it is an existential threat to human civilization and must be treated as a crime against humanity.

Conclusion:

Nigeria cannot afford to tolerate sympathizers of terrorism in any guise. The law is clear, the courts have spoken, and history teaches us that national survival must come before individual liberties. To preserve our sovereignty and protect our people, terrorism must be confronted with uncompromising resolve—legally, militarily, and morally.