Banner Online News

By Dr. Ifeanyi Michael Osuoza

The statement credited to the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede, invoking the Biblical Parable of the Prodigal Son as a framework for dealing with terrorists, while morally appealing, raises serious concerns when subjected to rigorous security and ethical analysis.

First, the analogy itself is conceptually misplaced. The prodigal son in Luke 15:11–32 was not a violent offender, insurgent, or threat to public safety. His “offence” was moral and personal, wastefulness and estrangement, not mass violence or terrorism. Extending this parable to actors engaged in systematic killing, abduction, and destabilization represents a category error: it conflates private moral failure with organized violent extremism.

Second, the primary obligation of the state, under both constitutional and international law, is the protection of life and property. Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” Any policy posture that appears to prioritize the rehabilitation of perpetrators over the immediate safety of citizens risks undermining this foundational principle.

Third, while deradicalization and reintegration are legitimate components of modern counterterrorism strategy, they are typically deployed after effective kinetic and law-enforcement operations have neutralized threats. Globally, frameworks such as the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (2006) emphasize a balanced approach, combining prevention, enforcement, and, rehabilitation, but never at the expense of deterrence or accountability.

Fourth, there is a deterrence dilemma. Public messaging that suggests hesitation in the use of force against terrorists may unintentionally embolden armed groups, weaken troop morale, and erode public confidence in the military’s resolve. In asymmetric warfare, perception is strategy, and ambiguity can be costly.

Finally, from a moral philosophy standpoint, even just war theory (Augustine, Aquinas) recognizes the legitimacy of force in preventing greater harm. Mercy is virtuous, but justice and protection of the innocent are paramount. A state that fails to decisively confront violent threats risks creating conditions where impunity thrives.

Conclusion

While the call for repentance and reintegration reflects commendable humanism, it must be situated within a clear hierarchy of priorities: security, justice, rehabilitation (where feasible and verifiable).

Terrorists who surrender and genuinely renounce violence may be considered for structured deradicalization programmes under strict legal frameworks. However, those actively engaged in violence must be met with the full weight of lawful force.

In matters of national security, compassion must not eclipse responsibility, and analogies, no matter how evocative, must not substitute for sound strategy.