Kajuru Abductions: When Denial Costs Lives
By Kabir Abdulsalam
Nigeria has seen this script before. In April 2014, the abduction of schoolgirls in Chibok, Borno, was initially dismissed as exaggerated by then President Goodluck Jonathan. In February 2021, under the late President Muhammadu Buhari, conflicting official accounts followed the mass abduction of students from Government Girls Secondary School, Jangebe, Zamfara. By July 2021, parents of students kidnapped from Bethel Baptist High School in Kaduna were urged to remain calm while authorities sought “confirmation.”
In each case, government denial came first, with admission following only after public outrage and international attention made silence unsustainable. This reflex—often defended as a tool to prevent panicnhas become a recurring feature of Nigeria’s security communication. Yet history shows that it rarely protects citizens. Instead, it protects narratives. While officials debate figures and semantics, perpetrators gain critical time to relocate victims and consolidate leverage. More damaging, public trust erodes, replaced by the perception that image management takes precedence over human lives.
The attack in Kurmin Wali, Kajuru Local Government Area of Kaduna State, on three churches during Sunday services on January 18, followed a familiar pattern. Credible reports from residents and faith leaders circulated immediately. Yet the Kaduna State Government, through the Commissioner of Police and the local government chairman, dismissed the abductions as fabrications by “conflict entrepreneurs.”
Senior officers at the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) headquarters in Abuja who’s name was not mentioned in the media reportedly expressed dismay at the handling of the incident by Kaduna State Police Command.
According to a source quoted by media, the denial was a decision of Governor Uba Sani and his team, instructing officials to counter the confirmation by the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) for reasons “best known to the Governor.” Curiously, the Governor’s post-meeting updates on social media mentioned general security developments but made no reference to the abduction, signaling official discomfort rather than ignorance.
Read Also:
By then, media outlets had already aired interviews with CAN’s Northern chairman, Rev. John Hayab, confirming the abduction. Yet, following the State Security Council meeting, officials were directed to publicly deny that a single worshipper had been kidnapped. Only later did the Nigeria Police Force headquarters reverse the position, confirming that worshippers had indeed been abducted after further verification and intelligence assessments.
More than two days after the raid, police announced that an earlier denial had been “widely misinterpreted.” While local residents told the BBC that 177 worshippers were abducted, with 11 later escaping. However, Police spokesperson Benjamin Hundeyin in a statement said operational checks and intelligence sources had confirmed the abduction. He said security forces were deployed, with search-and-rescue operations underway. By that time, valuable hours had been lost, anxiety had spread, and confidence in official communication had weakened.
Security analyst suggest that the denial was motivated less by uncertainty than by concern over optics. Admitting that worshippers were abducted would have immediately internationalized the crisis, at a time when Nigeria remains under scrutiny over religious freedom and mass kidnappings.
But denial is not neutral. In security management, it carries operational and reputational consequences. British security analyst Paul Rogers has noted that “states lose legitimacy not because crises occur, but because they pretend they do not.” In fragile environments like northern Nigeria, denial signals weakness, not control. Armed groups exploit delays, communities feel abandoned, and the state’s credibility suffers.
The Kaduna attack also highlights the risks of subordinating security response to narrative management. Military deployment reportedly followed days after the attack, by which time perpetrators had dispersed. In asymmetric conflicts, speed is critical. Hours lost to hesitation or reputational calculation often translate into lives lost or negotiations complicated.
Governments are right to verify facts and avoid unnecessary panic. But caution is different from categorical denial. One creates space for effective response; the other wastes it. Stability sustained by silence is inherently fragile, and peace models built on underreporting violence are unlikely to endure.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether Kaduna or Nigeria faces insecurity. It does. The question is whether authorities are willing to confront it promptly, transparently, and institutionally. Security governance should not be play by full public relations. It is about protecting lives, but managing headlines can be accepted. Until that distinction is fully internalized, incidents like Kajuru will continue to follow a tragic pattern: first denied, then reluctantly admitted, and finally mourned when intervention has already come too late.
Kabir Abdulsalam is a Public affair analyst, writes from Abuja. He can be reach via [email protected]@gmail.com
