SECURITY CHALLENGES & KIDNAP RANSOM INSURANCE POLICY
In an election year security is a serious issue with violence, kidnapping, terrorism and political intolerance or threat of them as some of the phenomena that pose serious danger to it. So the price of security becomes higher than normal non-election times when life is taken for granted. In recognition of this high stake Federal Government’s recent delivery additional military hardware to deal terminal blows to the insurgency in the North-East is a welcome development.
There have been violence at Edo State legislators’ quarters as well as anarchy and vandalism at Ekiti High Court as the nation counts down to election. The 2007 and 2011 were characteristized by election violence. Perhaps these omens led political parties to sign non – violence pact also known as “Abuja accord” binding leaders and supporters against provocative and violent campaigns. However commendable as that may appear, reports of violent incidents thereafter keeps one wondering whether that pact requires further validation for its efficacy. And that questions how much reliance to place on the provisions of criminal / penal codes, Electoral Acts offences, Public Order Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act and their enforcements.
Even though political associations are ordinarily considered social goods, they sometimes metamorphose into a repressive evil, just like Khamer Rouge party did in Cambodia some years ago; or the activities of Sandanista in Latin America or the heinous activities of Italian mafia which dated as far back as 1875 in Sicily. They had at different times posed threat and real danger to security.
Sicilia mafia were a group of aggrieved individuals acting on revenge or protest against denial of the right to vote which led to a “boss” with followers springing up to redress that denial. In the course of redressing the social malaise, various tactics and strategies were adopted: threat, harm, kidnapping, torture, maiming and killing, just as Boko Haram has been doing in the North East.
Although some analysts paint the picture of mafia as political instead of terrorist, especially if the account that led to their origin in Sicily is taken as fact. It is probably such analyst that equally label terrorists political. In my view both are on the same page even though the difference between their modus operandi remain subtle with a common denominator of illegality.
The word ‘mafia’ does not have modern definite meaning except that link above with their historical origin, however it can share antecedents with Boko Haram since their ‘Jihad’ to make the nation ungovernable came after electoral victory of Jonathan in 2011, which is also a protest about votes. But they are not exactly the same. However, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defined ‘mafia’ thus: “In Sicily, the spirit of hostility to law and its ministers, often manifested itself in vindictive crimes. Also the body of those who share in this spirit”,. Simply put any group that poses security threat to individuals, governments or both can be tagged ‘mafia’, especially if they remain amorphous and use subterranean operation.
However, in the eye of the law both groups and operations are illegal and unconstitutional. My worry is that if the laws, especially criminal law of all nations have criminalized the conducts of those groups as unlawful societies against government, (s.62 Criminal Code) where did modern state or government found the audacity or is it exception to meddle with their activities by approving or condoning insurance policies that accrue to their benefits? Although most insurance companies are private investments with shareholders across borders but there seem to be complicity if governments hold shares in those insurance companies.
By s. 62 of Criminal Code these groups have to be at least 10 persons and there has to be a declaration order by the government that the groups are unlawful societies. In the light of this one wonders Nigeria took such along time before it could declare Boko Haram a terrorist organization only for the USA to do so forthrightly.
Sometimes like a dream or nightmare one hears about kidnapping. You are not the victim. Of course not or that victim is a relation. Perhaps not at all. But the hard fact is that you could be a victim; your relation or someone(s) you know could be. That is the crux of the menace. It is at this point that I heard the idea of kidnap ransom insurance policy with mixed feelings. #The idea is not local yet since crisis management consultants are still working on the operational modules. A syndicate of American Insurance Group (AIG), American International Insurance Company (AIICO) etc. are teaming up with other insurance companies to provide policies that could be taken up by families, corporate bodies to recover sums paid as ransom for the release of loved family members or staff of corporations especially those who travel to areas with record of militancy, terrorism, mafia activities or even drug barons taking hostages in exchange for release of detained
drug offenders.
In the case of corporate bodies it is difficult to see the moral basis of what looks like tacit approval of bribery albeit to save life. Commenting on corporate bribery in this instance, FIFA bribery report recently published Kolawole Olaniyan defined bribery as: “the receiving or offering of any undue reward by or in any person whatsoever in a public or private role, in order to influence his or her behavior in that role, and incline him/her to act contrary to the known rules of honesty, impartiality and integrity.”
However, I am more disposed to come to terms with the psychological basis of kidnap ransom insurance policy. For families of those in the employ of corporate bodies it is a golden assurance that in the case of such sad and undesirable incident nothing would be spared to secure the release of their loved ones, although such polices cannot exceed $30 million. Suppose the ‘devils’ decide to play the Oliver Twist by asking for more than that? The entire scheme becomes meaningless. But the rationale is psychological succor. You may not use it but it is a precaution that could come to aid any time. It offers protection to corporate bodies against incidence of kidnap and preventive protection when such sad even occurs. The proposed insurers have made it clear that they do not pay ransom on behalf of the insured but reimburses sum paid as ransom, injuries or death, losses; medical bills and ransoms paid on transit.
Since huge sums of money are paid annually as kidnap ransom, those likely to consider this policy include but not limited to those who operate in militancy prone areas, companies with sensitive information or technology or in control of huge cash. Equally prone places are areas with records of drug barons taking hostages in exchange for release of detained drug offenders; holiday resorts as well as hijacking spots. It is possible that this policy would become desirable to many people and institutions considering that the insurgency in the North East has not abated coupled with the fact that it is an election year.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
In an election year security is a serious issue with violence, kidnapping, terrorism and political intolerance or threat of them as some of the phenomena that pose serious danger to it. So the price of security becomes higher than normal non-election times when life is taken for granted. In recognition of this high stake Federal Government’s recent delivery additional military hardware to deal terminal blows to the insurgency in the North-East is a welcome development.
There have been violence at Edo State legislators’ quarters as well as anarchy and vandalism at Ekiti High Court as the nation counts down to election. The 2007 and 2011 were characteristized by election violence. Perhaps these omens led political parties to sign non – violence pact also known as “Abuja accord” binding leaders and supporters against provocative and violent campaigns. However commendable as that may appear, reports of violent incidents thereafter keeps one wondering whether that pact requires further validation for its efficacy. And that questions how much reliance to place on the provisions of criminal / penal codes, Electoral Acts offences, Public Order Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act and their enforcements.
Even though political associations are ordinarily considered social goods, they sometimes metamorphose into a repressive evil, just like Khamer Rouge party did in Cambodia some years ago; or the activities of Sandanista in Latin America or the heinous activities of Italian mafia which dated as far back as 1875 in Sicily. They had at different times posed threat and real danger to security.
Sicilia mafia were a group of aggrieved individuals acting on revenge or protest against denial of the right to vote which led to a “boss” with followers springing up to redress that denial. In the course of redressing the social malaise, various tactics and strategies were adopted: threat, harm, kidnapping, torture, maiming and killing, just as Boko Haram has been doing in the North East.
Although some analysts paint the picture of mafia as political instead of terrorist, especially if the account that led to their origin in Sicily is taken as fact. It is probably such analyst that equally label terrorists political. In my view both are on the same page even though the difference between their modus operandi remain subtle with a common denominator of illegality.
The word ‘mafia’ does not have modern definite meaning except that link above with their historical origin, however it can share antecedents with Boko Haram since their ‘Jihad’ to make the nation ungovernable came after electoral victory of Jonathan in 2011, which is also a protest about votes. But they are not exactly the same. However, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defined ‘mafia’ thus: “In Sicily, the spirit of hostility to law and its ministers, often manifested itself in vindictive crimes. Also the body of those who share in this spirit”,. Simply put any group that poses security threat to individuals, governments or both can be tagged ‘mafia’, especially if they remain amorphous and use subterranean operation.
However, in the eye of the law both groups and operations are illegal and unconstitutional. My worry is that if the laws, especially criminal law of all nations have criminalized the conducts of those groups as unlawful societies against government, (s.62 Criminal Code) where did modern state or government found the audacity or is it exception to meddle with their activities by approving or condoning insurance policies that accrue to their benefits? Although most insurance companies are private investments with shareholders across borders but there seem to be complicity if governments hold shares in those insurance companies.
By s. 62 of Criminal Code these groups have to be at least 10 persons and there has to be a declaration order by the government that the groups are unlawful societies. In the light of this one wonders Nigeria took such along time before it could declare Boko Haram a terrorist organization only for the USA to do so forthrightly.
Sometimes like a dream or nightmare one hears about kidnapping. You are not the victim. Of course not or that victim is a relation. Perhaps not at all. But the hard fact is that you could be a victim; your relation or someone(s) you know could be. That is the crux of the menace. It is at this point that I heard the idea of kidnap ransom insurance policy with mixed feelings. #The idea is not local yet since crisis management consultants are still working on the operational modules. A syndicate of American Insurance Group (AIG), American International Insurance Company (AIICO) etc. are teaming up with other insurance companies to provide policies that could be taken up by families, corporate bodies to recover sums paid as ransom for the release of loved family members or staff of corporations especially those who travel to areas with record of militancy, terrorism, mafia activities or even drug barons taking hostages in exchange for release of detained
drug offenders.
In the case of corporate bodies it is difficult to see the moral basis of what looks like tacit approval of bribery albeit to save life. Commenting on corporate bribery in this instance, FIFA bribery report recently published Kolawole Olaniyan defined bribery as: “the receiving or offering of any undue reward by or in any person whatsoever in a public or private role, in order to influence his or her behavior in that role, and incline him/her to act contrary to the known rules of honesty, impartiality and integrity.”
However, I am more disposed to come to terms with the psychological basis of kidnap ransom insurance policy. For families of those in the employ of corporate bodies it is a golden assurance that in the case of such sad and undesirable incident nothing would be spared to secure the release of their loved ones, although such polices cannot exceed $30 million. Suppose the ‘devils’ decide to play the Oliver Twist by asking for more than that? The entire scheme becomes meaningless. But the rationale is psychological succor. You may not use it but it is a precaution that could come to aid any time. It offers protection to corporate bodies against incidence of kidnap and preventive protection when such sad even occurs. The proposed insurers have made it clear that they do not pay ransom on behalf of the insured but reimburses sum paid as ransom, injuries or death, losses; medical bills and ransoms paid on transit.
Since huge sums of money are paid annually as kidnap ransom, those likely to consider this policy include but not limited to those who operate in militancy prone areas, companies with sensitive information or technology or in control of huge cash. Equally prone places are areas with records of drug barons taking hostages in exchange for release of detained drug offenders; holiday resorts as well as hijacking spots. It is possible that this policy would become desirable to many people and institutions considering that the insurgency in the North East has not abated coupled with the fact that it is an election year.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
No comments:
Post a Comment