The recent announcement by Nigeria’s Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, that the government would not “name and shame” identified financiers of terrorism, has reinforced concerns about the government’s commitment to effectively combating terrorism. His justification, that revealing these names could jeopardize ongoing investigations, fails to convince many who expect decisive action. President Bola Tinubu must shift away from the cautious and politicized responses of his predecessors, which allowed terrorism to grow and further endangered the country’s stability.

Security of life and property is the government’s most fundamental duty, and this duty includes enforcing the concept of ‘Crime and Punishment.’ To maintain social order, crimes must be met with appropriate punishment—whether through deterrence, prevention, or retribution. However, Nigeria’s government has historically shown weaknesses in enforcing laws, selectively applying justice, and politicizing the country’s persistent insecurity.

This has been evident through successive administrations, which have struggled to contain terrorism, banditry, and the violence perpetrated by Fulani herdsmen. Fagbemi’s reluctance to disclose the names of terrorist financiers raises concerns that the current administration will follow this same problematic path.

While Fagbemi alluded to “identified” financiers during the 27th Inter-Governmental Action Group Against Laundering in West Africa meeting, his reasoning for withholding their names is seen as inadequate. Once a suspect is identified, the proper course of action is a swift investigation. The idea that naming these individuals could derail investigations is not compelling, as law enforcement agencies around the world routinely refrain from notifying suspects until sufficient evidence is collected for their prosecution.

Nigeria, however, has a long history of hesitating to prosecute terrorism financiers. In September 2021, the United Arab Emirates publicly named six Nigerians among 38 individuals who supported the Boko Haram terrorist group. While the UAE prosecuted and sentenced these individuals, Nigeria, despite receiving the names of over 400 terror financiers, failed to act. Former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami repeatedly promised action but never followed through, citing concerns over the legality of public disclosure.

This pattern of inaction has significantly weakened Nigeria’s fight against terrorism. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) stresses that the key to defeating terrorism is disrupting its funding channels through rigorous prosecution of financiers. However, despite over a decade of Boko Haram’s violent insurgency, the Nigerian government has yet to prosecute any major financier.

Countries like the UAE, the United States, and Saudi Arabia have taken swift action against terrorist financiers, naming, prosecuting, and sentencing those involved. If Nigeria is to successfully defeat the terror groups that have plagued its citizens, it must adopt a similar approach—swift and uncompromising action against not only the terrorists themselves but also those who fund and enable them.

For President Tinubu’s administration to break from this troubling legacy, it must hold financiers accountable and restore confidence in Nigeria’s justice system. Fagbemi’s hesitancy should not define the government’s response to terrorism.