Lasisi Olagunju’s essay, “Why Oriire Was Not Chibok”, published in the Nigerian Tribune of Monday, July 13, 2026 is powerful, eloquent and emotionally compelling.
It raises an important national question: why are some mass abductions resolved more quickly than others?
That question deserves serious debate. However, while the article succeeds in provoking discussion, it also advances conclusions that are insufficiently supported by evidence and risk deepening Nigeria’s regional divisions rather than strengthening national solidarity.
The first difficulty with the article is its tendency to attribute differences in security outcomes to broad cultural characteristics of entire regions. The author argues that the Yoruba cultural worldview celebrates life, education, community mobilisation and resistance to evil, whereas Northern society allegedly embraces silence, fatalism and accommodation with terrorism. Such sweeping conclusions cannot be sustained by the historical record.
Northern Nigeria has produced some of the strongest resistance to insurgency in Africa. Thousands of civilians have volunteered in the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF), vigilante organisations and local hunter groups to confront Boko Haram and other terrorist groups.
Traditional rulers, Islamic scholars, community leaders and ordinary citizens have paid enormous sacrifices resisting violent extremism. Tens of thousands of Northerners have lost their lives in this struggle. To suggest that Northern communities simply tolerate terrorism overlooks these realities and unfairly diminishes the courage of those who continue to resist at great personal cost.
Secondly, the article understates the structural differences between the security environments of Oyo State and the North-East. Oriire and Chibok are not merely separated by geography; they are separated by entirely different conflict ecosystems.
Oyo confronted a kidnapping incident within a relatively stable state. Borno has faced a prolonged insurgency involving heavily armed terrorist organisations controlling difficult terrain across international borders with Niger, Chad and Cameroon. Military operations in such an environment are infinitely more complex than rescue operations against isolated kidnapping gangs operating within a relatively peaceful region.
Thirdly, the argument appears to confuse media visibility with governmental commitment. It is true that the Oriire abduction attracted sustained national attention. However, the Chibok abduction became one of the most internationally publicised kidnappings in modern history.
The #BringBackOurGirls campaign mobilised world leaders, international organisations, celebrities and governments across continents. Numerous rescue operations have since been conducted, resulting in the release of many Chibok girls over several years. The slower pace of recovery reflects operational challenges rather than an absence of concern.
Similarly, the suggestion that Northern political leaders remain silent requires qualification. Governors, legislators, traditional institutions and religious organisations across the North have repeatedly condemned terrorism, appealed for stronger military action and supported internally displaced persons.
Senator Ali Ndume’s recent appeal cited by the author is itself evidence that Northern leaders continue to demand federal intervention. Their voices may not always dominate national media, but silence should not be inferred simply because public communication differs in tone or frequency.
The article also risks reinforcing stereotypes by contrasting a supposedly progressive Yoruba culture with a supposedly fatalistic Northern culture.
Every Nigerian society possesses traditions that celebrate life, education, family and communal responsibility. Islam, which is the faith of the overwhelming majority of Northern Nigerians, unequivocally condemns the murder of innocent people, kidnapping and terrorism. Likewise, Hausa, Fulani, Kanuri, Nupe, Tiv, Jukun and many other Northern cultures possess rich traditions emphasising hospitality, courage, learning and justice.
Extremism represents a violent deviation from these traditions rather than their logical expression.
Moreover, public policy analysis cautions against cultural determinism. Terrorism flourishes where governance is weak, state capacity is limited, borders are porous, poverty is widespread, intelligence coordination is inadequate and armed groups enjoy access to weapons and illicit financing. These institutional variables are far more persuasive explanations than broad claims about regional psychology or cultural values.
Nevertheless, the article makes several important observations that deserve serious consideration. Communities should never normalise violence. Citizens should continue demanding accountability from elected officials. Governments must communicate transparently with affected families. Security agencies should treat every kidnapped Nigerian child, regardless of region, as an urgent national priority. Civil society, the media and community organisations all have essential roles in sustaining pressure for action.
The success of the Oriire rescue should therefore not become a basis for regional comparison or cultural triumphalism. Instead, it should become a case study for improving Nigeria’s national counter-kidnapping doctrine.
If intelligence coordination, inter-agency cooperation, community engagement and sustained political attention contributed to the successful rescue in Oyo State, those lessons should be systematically adapted for Borno, Zamfara, Katsina, Niger, Kebbi, Sokoto, Kaduna, Kwara and every other part of Nigeria confronting insecurity.
Ultimately, Nigeria cannot afford narratives that imply one region values human life more than another. Every parent whose child has disappeared into the forests of Sambisa, the hills of Shiroro, the forests of Kaiama or the bush around Oriire experiences the same anguish. Every community wants its children back. Every region deserves equal protection under the Constitution.
The challenge before Nigeria is therefore not to decide whether Oriire was different from Chibok. The challenge is to build institutions capable of ensuring that no community—North or South, Christian or Muslim, rural or urban—ever becomes another Oriire or another Chibok.
*Hon Ahmed M Salik,PhD.
email: ahmedmsalik@gmail.com