 The Senate has prohibited the payment of ransoms through kidnappers in its beats to complement the federal government's effort to tackle the disturbing spate of insecurity in the country. Payment of kidnapped ransom was criminalized by the lawmakers during Plenary Nabooja as a positive terrorism prevention act 2013 amendment bill 2022 following the receipt and consideration of a report by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters on the bill. In his remark, the Senate President Ahmed Lawan congratulated his colleagues on the passage of the bill, which he said was very important. And joining us on the news at this time to talk about the newly passed bill is Executive Director of Rulofloor and Accountability Advocacy Center in Mostate, OK Nwangoma. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Nwangoma. Thank you for having me. Good evening. Good evening to you. Now, the Senate says that the purpose for this bill is to discourage the rising spate of kidnapping and abduction for ransom cases in Nigeria. Do you see this being achieved? Can you start again? The purpose for which this has been passed by the Senate is to discourage the rising spate of kidnapping and abduction for ransom cases in Nigeria. Do you see this being achieved? Well, first of all, what we find happening quite often is that when the national assembly is viewing laws or trying to make laws, they seem to do it without the involvement of informed critical decoders. And security laws, you know, building on security, ought to be carefully looked at when they need to review. They also need to ensure that by public sharing that critical decoders who are informed are involved in this issue. Now, when we are talking about criminalizing the payment of ransom, I don't know how I just think this sounds to me because what we want to hear is how much as governments, you know, put measures in place to ensure that kidnapping is curtailed, that these terrorist who are kidnapping Nigeria every day will not continue to have a few days. Because when people continue to be kidnapped and government and security agencies don't seem to have the capacity to rescue those who are being kidnapped or to just stop kidnapping or use it in the best minimum. And the family members of the big things have a left with no option than to pay ransom to a student, you know, to not remember. How would you then say that people should not pay ransom? Of course, in all the normal circumstances, we do not want to see people paying ransom. We want to see a situation where when citizens are kidnapped, security agents are in a position to rescue them and that we don't need to pay ransom. But when this does happen, what options are family members? So I think that the best set of little realistic in the things they say and do, you know, especially with regards to combating terrorism. If I talk about terrorism, the anti-terrorist act, there are aspects of it that needs to be looked into. For example, the discussion of terrorism has been defined under the current act. This is all a strange attitude and a description to the security approach. So define a bit of terrorism. So you will see journalists who are arrested, arrested and charged with terrorism. You see people, you know, advocating for some information. They are labelled as anti-government. It's going like there's no judicial, judicial accountability for security agencies who engage in excesses in the presence of fighting terrorism. Okay, well, the situation at hand now is that this bill has been passed. And that means that anyone who pays any terrorist, any kidnapper, stands at the risk of being imprisoned. And we know that there are people who have been kidnapped. They are right now at the kidnappers. Then which is the way forward for victims and families of victims as we speak? So what this means is that government wants to, you know, further victimize those who are already victims. Because those who are kidnapped are the primary victims. Their family members are the secondary victims. For taking steps in the absence of government ability to restart these duties of sexual people, to pay ransom to rescue the kidnapped members, they are going to be considered as having a perpetrator. I think that this needs to be reviewed again. This cannot be allowed. It cannot be allowed. How can it be reviewed? By whom? By me. That is the point about ensuring that they involve particular stakeholders who are informed in reviewing laws. Because most disabled persons will support this kind of review that says, if you pay ransom, you have committed a crime. But government is not able to restrict people who have been kidnapped. And families have no option. Well, you are the Executive Director, Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Center, Imo State, Okinwanguma. Sorry, I added your name to that. I just wanted to clarify your office. And I just think that we've gotten to the point in the country where we go beyond talking and saying it should be. How do we start this process? I mean, what I'm saying is that in the best to come, I'm sure that those who know will also weigh in on this review. As far as I'm concerned, it's not realistic. What if they say people should not pay ransom to rescue? That's all they remember so I mean. They can not. They are sure that they could be able to rescue them when they are kidnapped. They are sure that they could have been strengthened to be able to combat kidnappings to eat the best, you know, minimum. Before they will say don't pay ransom. It means that they have put themselves in place to ensure that once people are kidnapped, government secret addresses are in the position to tell the students. Well, thank you so much, Mr Okinwanguma. You are the executive director, rule of law and accountability advocacy center. Thank you so much for your time and insight.