₦airaland Forum

Among the great figures of the Old Testament, two men stand above almost all others in their significance to the Christian faith: Abraham and David. Abraham is the father of faith, the friend of God, and the recipient of God’s covenant. David is the shepherd, warrior, king, and poet, the man after God’s own heart, from whose lineage Jesus Christ would eventually come. Though separated by more than a thousand years, both men occupy a unique place in Christianity because their lives serve as bridges between the Old and New Testaments. Their actions, therefore, are not merely historical events preserved for our curiosity; they are examples from which believers are expected to learn. It is remarkable that these two giants of the faith, living in different eras and circumstances, each encountered the twin evils of kidnapping and banditry. More remarkable still is that they responded in exactly the same manner. Neither accepted the situation as inevitable, neither resigned himself to prayer without action, and neither delegated responsibility to others. Both confronted evil directly, pursued the perpetrators, and rescued those who had been taken captive.

The first example is found in Genesis 14. An alliance of four kings invaded the cities of the plain, defeated their inhabitants, seized their possessions, and carried many people away captive. Among those kidnapped was Lot, Abraham’s nephew, together with his family and household. The Bible tells us that a survivor escaped from the destruction and travelled to inform Abraham of what had happened. Up until this point in Scripture, Abraham had largely been introduced as a man of faith, a man who obeyed God and walked with Him. Yet the moment he learned that his nephew had been carried away by violent men, another side of his character emerged. Abraham immediately assembled three hundred and eighteen trained men from his household and pursued the invaders. He tracked them, attacked them by night, defeated them in battle, recovered Lot, rescued the other captives, and restored all the property that had been stolen. The first mention of military action by the father of faith was not a war of conquest, nor a struggle for wealth or power. It was a mission to rescue kidnapped people. The same Abraham whose blessings Christians enthusiastically claim today demonstrated that faith does not mean passivity in the face of evil.

More than a thousand years later, David found himself confronted by a remarkably similar tragedy. The account is recorded in First Samuel 30. David and his men returned to their base in Ziklag after a journey only to discover that their town had been burned to the ground. Their wives had been kidnapped. Their children had been kidnapped. Everything they possessed had been carried away by Amalekite bandits. The emotional impact of the disaster was so severe that the Bible says David’s own men wept until they had no strength left to weep. These were battle hardened warriors who had stood with David through years of hardship and danger, yet the loss of their families broke them. In their anguish, they even discussed stoning David. It is a profoundly human moment in Scripture because it reveals that even brave men can be driven to despair when their loved ones are threatened. David, however, did not surrender to grief. After seeking the Lord, he gathered his men and pursued the bandits. Finding them celebrating their loot and making merry with their captives, David attacked with ferocity and fought until he had utterly defeated them. The Bible records that not one person was missing. David recovered all.

These two stories should disturb every Christian man in Nigeria because they expose the enormous gap between the faith we profess and the faith we practice. Every Sunday, churches across the country resound with songs proclaiming that Abraham’s blessings belong to us. Pastors frequently invoke Abraham while teaching about faith, prosperity, and covenant promises. Yet it is striking that very few Christians speak about the fact that Abraham’s faith was demonstrated through courageous action against kidnappers. Likewise, Christians read the Psalms of David daily and celebrate his devotion to God, but often overlook the courage, responsibility, and determination that characterized his response when innocent people were carried away by violent men. We admire these men from a distance while ignoring the very qualities that made them worthy of admiration in the first place.

This brings us to the uncomfortable reality facing Nigeria today. Across large parts of the country, bandits and terrorists have transformed kidnapping into a thriving industry. Villages are attacked, highways have become dangerous, farmers are driven from their lands, women are abducted, and children are carried away into forests. What is particularly disturbing is that many Christians have responded with a level of complacency that would have been incomprehensible to Abraham and David. We have become accustomed to hearing reports of kidnappings and massacres as though they are merely unfortunate features of national life. We pray, we complain, we move on, and then we repeat the cycle when the next atrocity occurs. Meanwhile, the criminals become bolder, communities become more fearful, and the institutions responsible for protecting citizens continue to fail without consequence.

Christian men in particular must recognize that the first responsibility God places upon a man is not wealth, status, comfort, or influence. It is protection. From the beginning of Scripture, men are entrusted with the responsibility of guarding what God places in their care. A man who cannot protect his family has failed in a responsibility more fundamental than financial provision. What is the value of a house if those who live in it are unsafe? What is the value of wealth if one’s children live in fear? What is the value of success if communities are overrun by violence while able bodied men stand by helplessly? These questions are uncomfortable, but they must be asked because a society in which men abandon their protective responsibilities is a society already in decline.

This does not mean that every man must take up arms and enter the forests. Most Nigerian men have never handled a firearm, and many have neither the training nor the capacity for direct confrontation. Yet there is still much that can be done. Men can organize within their communities. Men can support local security initiatives. Men can demand accountability from elected officials. Men can participate in civic organizations. Men can refuse to normalize evil. Most importantly, men can create enough social and political pressure that public officials understand that failure to protect citizens carries consequences. Governments respond when citizens are organized, vocal, and persistent. The tragedy of Nigeria is not merely the irresponsibility of many public officials; it is also the willingness of citizens to tolerate irresponsibility for far too long.

The kidnapping of school children in Ogbomoso and the murder of Micheal Oyedokun should have represented a turning point. The Southwest should have been shaken to its core. We are rightly known as tolerant and accommodating people, but there must be limits beyond which tolerance becomes weakness. There must be lines that human decency simply refuses to allow evil to cross. The fact that children can be carried into captivity and held for days while society continues almost as normal should trouble the conscience of every decent person. The fact that a teacher can be murdered and yet national outrage dissipates within days should alarm us. If these events do not awaken us, then what exactly will? If the kidnapping of babies does not stir us to action, then what remains of our moral instincts as a people?

The Bible teaches that there is a time for everything under heaven. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war. For many years, the Southwest enjoyed a level of relative stability that perhaps encouraged a dangerous sense of security. That season is over. We must stop describing our situation merely as insecurity. The word is too mild for the reality confronting us. Communities across the country are under siege by armed groups who have demonstrated a willingness to kill, kidnap, extort, and terrorize innocent people. Recovering those currently in captivity is absolutely necessary, but it is only the beginning. The larger challenge is creating a society in which such atrocities become increasingly difficult to commit. That requires stronger security structures, serious consideration of state policing, improved intelligence gathering, effective forest management, and above all, a population that understands that vigilance is now a permanent civic duty.

Most importantly, we must recover a sense of collective responsibility. We must once again believe that every child in our community belongs to all of us. When one family suffers, all families should feel the pain. When one community is attacked, neighboring communities should be alarmed. When innocent people are kidnapped, society should respond with a level of urgency that leaves no doubt about the value we place on human life. The indifference that has crept into our national character is itself a danger. It weakens us, isolates us, and makes us easier prey for those who seek to spread fear and chaos.

If we are indeed the seed of Abraham then we must act in faith like Abraham did in the face of kidnapping; and if our Lord Jesus Christ is the son of David, then we must pursue, overtake, and recover everyone who has been kidnapped by bandits in our community like David did. If the Bible says that a righteous man leaves an inheritance for his children and his children’s children, what is the most basic inheritance a man can leave his children beyond a safe place to live and the protection of their basic right to live peaceably? https://atlanticdigest.com/opinion/pursue-overtake-recover-all-an-open-letter-to-christian-men-in-nigeria/

This is old news...as far back as 4-5 years, I believe.

@Boldbrainz, you missed out Uganda. It has the highest gold deposits based on recent discovery.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.mining-technology.com/features/uganda-gold-deposit-investment/%23:~:text%3DIn%2520July%2520the%2520Ugandan%2520Government,approximate%2520value%2520of%2520%252412.8tn.&ved=2ahUKEwjF68PVxd6BAxVJUUEAHRhBBdcQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2V5SVvjs22oyVAmW0d_Jaj

The agreement between the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Ltd (NNPCL) and Afreximbank for a $3 billion crude oil repayment loan has several implications:

1. Financial Support: The loan provides immediate financial support to the NNPC Ltd and indirectly to the Nigerian government. It will help them address fiscal and monetary challenges by providing liquidity to stabilize the exchange rate market. This infusion of funds can assist in meeting immediate financial obligations and boosting the country's economic stability.

2. Exchange Rate Stability: The loan aims to stabilize the exchange rate market, indicating the commitment of both institutions to address currency volatility. A stable exchange rate is crucial for attracting foreign investment, promoting trade, and maintaining macroeconomic stability.

3. Economic Reforms: The agreement suggests that the Nigerian government is actively pursuing fiscal and monetary policy reforms. By seeking external financial support, they aim to implement necessary economic reforms to improve the overall economic climate, attract investors, and foster sustainable economic growth.

4. Confidence Boost: The partnership with Afreximbank signals international confidence in the Nigerian economy and its ability to implement reforms. It demonstrates that the country's efforts to address economic challenges are recognized and supported by reputable financial institutions.

5. Repayment Obligations: The loan agreement implies that the NNPCL has committed to repayment terms. This means that the funds received from Afreximbank will need to be repaid in the future, including any specified interest or fees. The exact terms of repayment will vary based on the termsheet and negotiation between the parties involved.

It's important to note that these implications are based on the provided information and general understanding of such agreements. For a more comprehensive analysis, additional details of the agreement would be required.