Nigerians Demand Action as FG Unveils 48 Terror Sponsors
By: Abudu Olalekan
Nigerians are calling for real, visible action after the Federal Government released an updated list of 48 individuals and 12 entities allegedly involved in financing terrorism. Security experts say naming suspects is a good first step, but if it isn’t followed by arrests, prosecutions, and asset freezes, it could end up doing more harm than good—undermining public trust in Nigeria’s counterterrorism efforts.
The list was published on Saturday by the Nigeria Sanctions Committee, and it’s one of the most detailed disclosures in recent times. It targets suspected financiers of violent groups operating across the country.
Reportersroom reports that some of the prominent names include Simon Ekpa, the Finland-based factional leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and Tukur Mamu, publisher of Desert Herald.
The list also names groups like Boko Haram, the Islamic State West Africa Province, and IPOB, along with entities such as West and East Africa General Trading, Settings Bureau De Change Ltd, and the Lakurawa Sect.
This comes at a time the government says it has secured 386 convictions in terrorism cases out of 508 prosecuted. But attacks are still happening in several states, including Borno, Kebbi, Kwara, and Zamfara, which is why many people aren’t satisfied with numbers alone.
Other names published on the NiGSAC website include Abdulsamat Ohida, Mohammed Sani, Abdurrahaman Abdurrahaman, Fatima Ishaq, Yusuf Ghazali, Muhammad Sani, Abubakar Muhammad, Sallamudeen Hassan, Adamu Ishaq, Hassana Isah, Abdulkareem Musa, Umar Abdullahi, Abdurrahaman Ado, Bashir Yusuf, Ibrahim Alhassan, Muhammad Isah, Salihu Adamu, Surajo Mohammad, Fannami Bukar, Muhammed Musa, Sahabi Ismail, Mohammed Buba, Adamu Hassan, Hassan Mohammed, Usman Abubakar, Kubara Salawu, Rabiu Suleiman, Godstime Iyare, Francis Mmaduabuchi, John Onwumere, Chikwuka Eze, Edwin Chukwuedo, Chiwendu Owoh, Ginika Orji, Awo Uchechukwu, Mercy Ali, Ohagwu Juliana, Eze Okpoto, Nwaobi Chimezie, and Ogumu Kewe.
Other entities listed as terrorism sponsors include G.Side General Enterprises, Desert Exchange Ventures Limited, Eagle Square General Trading Co. Ltd, Alfa Exchange BDC, Alin Yar Yaya General Enterprises, K. Are Nigeria Limited, Suhailah Bashir General Enterprises, Igwe Ka Ala Enterprises, Seficuvi Global Company, Jama’atu Wal-Jihad, Ansarul Sudan, Islamic Province, Yan Group, and Yan Group NLBDG.
In 2024, the Federal Government similarly listed nine individuals and six organisations tied to terror financing, which raised concerns about whether enforcement would actually follow through.
Experts Demand Swift Action
Analysts say the new list is an important step, but many worry it could end up being symbolic if nothing happens next. People want to see real movement—fast.
A retired Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Salami Abduraheem, put it plainly: “Publishing a list is only the beginning. The real test is what happens next: arrests, prosecution, and convictions. If these individuals continue to move freely weeks or months after being named, it sends a dangerous signal that the system lacks the capacity or will to act.”
He pointed out that in the past, announcements about terror financing networks haven’t always led to sustained legal action, leaving gaps that criminals can exploit.
Abdullahi Adeoye, a former director in a federal security agency, warned that suspects often try to disappear once their names are out. “Time is critical in cases like this,” he said. “Once names are out, suspects are alerted. If there is no immediate action—freezing accounts, restricting movement, and making arrests—you risk losing valuable intelligence.”
Adeoye stressed that success will take coordination between financial regulators, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement.
Legal and Institutional Hurdles
Musa Aliyu, a security analyst, said the move is long overdue, but he’s skeptical about Nigeria’s readiness to prosecute high-level terror financiers. “It shouldn’t just be about releasing the list,” he said. “They have to do due diligence. Honestly, the Nigerian legal system isn’t adequately prepared to prosecute terror sponsors effectively, and that’s clear from weaknesses in criminal justice administration.”
Aliyu also raised concerns about the judiciary’s ability to handle complex terrorism cases, and urged the National Assembly to strengthen legal frameworks. “The kind of judiciary we have right now isn’t wired to diligently prosecute these kinds of crimes. This is the time for lawmakers to provide the tools needed to ensure adequate punishment.”
He added that transparency matters, but due process matters too. “Justice must be seen to be done for victims—those killed, abducted, or forced to pay ransom. Nigerians must be assured the fight isn’t selective.”
Public Trust and Accountability
For many Nigerians, the list feels like a rare moment of openness in the fight against terrorism. But civil society groups say openness must be matched by accountability.
Shola Muse, a security governance expert, sounded doubtful. “It’s not just about releasing names. What’s the judicial value? What’s the executive value? If the government is sincere, it must convince the public that they’re ready this time to act decisively. Otherwise, it becomes a media jamboree.”
Muse called for real synergy among the three arms of government and security agencies. “There must be judicial support, executive will, and political backing. Without sincere and coordinated efforts, these measures may not achieve the desired results.”
Kemi Babatunde, another security governance expert, said public confidence has been shaken by past experiences. “Nigerians have seen lists before. What they want now is action—visible, measurable action. This isn’t just about security; it’s about trust.” She also stressed the need for clear, consistent updates so people can track progress.
What Nigerians Are Saying
After the announcement, many Nigerians took to Facebook and X to demand follow-through. One user, Fyneface Dumnamene, wrote, “Go beyond listing and prosecute them if you have facts.” Another, Frank Okpara, urged the government to investigate and summon suspects. Salawu Enesi added, “The FG should proceed with legal action to bring them to justice immediately.”
Security expert David Babawale outlined practical next steps: “The government needs to ensure the assets of the named individuals are immediately frozen, followed by swift arrests and increased collaboration between security agencies, transparent communication with the public, and fast-tracked prosecution through designated courts.”
Legal Framework and Prosecution Challenges
Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act provides the legal basis for prosecuting terror financing. But Taofiq Olateju, a Senior Associate at Yusuf O. Ali & Co, said successful prosecution requires more than intelligence reports. “You need admissible evidence that can stand in court: financial trails, witness testimony, digital records. These must be properly gathered and presented.”
He also noted how slow the system can be. “In Nigeria, cases can drag on for years. By the time you get to judgment, public interest has waned, and sometimes the evidence chain is compromised.”
A retired Commissioner of Police, Babatunde Salami, pointed to weak inter-agency coordination and political interference. “You have intelligence agencies, the police, the military, and financial regulators working on different aspects. Without a unified command structure, efforts can conflict.” He warned that politics could get in the way: “The fight against terrorism financing must be insulated from politics. Once people suspect selective enforcement, public confidence collapses.”
386 Terrorists Convicted
On Thursday, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, said the government had secured hundreds of convictions in terrorism-related cases. Speaking at the Federal High Court in Abuja, he said, “In total, we brought about 508 cases. Of these, we secured 386 convictions, eight discharges, two acquittals, and 112 adjournments.” He added that the convictions should serve as a deterrent.
Still, many experts believe the real test is whether this latest list leads to dismantling financing networks—and bringing those named to justice.
