Abanobi v. State: Addressing the Problem of Kidnapping

This article by learned Senior Advocate, Ebun‑Olu Adegboruwa, examines the case of Abanobi v The State, in which a 98‑year‑old woman was kidnapped and held in the boot of a vehicle by the appellant and co‑accused. It discusses the elements of the kidnapping offence, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and offers recommendations to the government on how to curb this commercial crime in Nigeria.

Introduction

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, kidnapping is “the crime of seizing and taking away a person by force or fraud, often with a demand for ransom (also manstealing).” Collins English Dictionary defines it as “to carry off and hold (a person), usually for ransom.” Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law describes it as “the forcible abduction or stealing away of a person, whether a man, woman, or child. It is an offence punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment.” Morally, stealing a human being is indefensible.

The law condemns the intent to deprive a person of their life, which is why kidnapping is treated with the same seriousness as murder, with some statutes prescribing the death penalty.

When a 98‑year‑old great‑grandmother is kidnapped, the act is so heinous that no remedy should be granted to the perpetrator. The victim was held in a car trunk, exposing her to extreme danger and suffering. The police, aided by community vigilantes, rescued her the same day. The case highlights the need for job creation and youth empowerment, and urges young people to pursue honest endeavors rather than quick wealth schemes.

Facts of the Case

The facts are reported in Abanobi v The State (2026) 5 NWLR (Pt.2037) 587. On 26 October 2014, the appellant, together with a co‑accused, kidnapped 98‑year‑old Madam Lydia Acho from her home in Isuikwuato Local Government Area, Abia State. She was rescued the same day in Ikuwano Local Government Area after a police car chase. The appellant and the second accused were apprehended at the scene; the appellant sustained gunshot wounds.

PW2 identified the appellant and co‑accused in the dock, citing the flashlight illumination. PW4, a police officer who led the patrol that intercepted the vehicle, testified that the kidnappers were inside a Peugeot 406 wagon when it crashed into a tree. The police fired at the occupants, who fled into surrounding bushes. The victim was retrieved from the trunk and taken to hospital. The appellant’s two phones were recovered from the vehicle.

After his arrest, the appellant made a statement to the police (exhibit “B”) and was the sole witness for his defence. He claimed he was also a victim, kidnapped by the two passengers while travelling from Anambra State to Aba. He admitted being in the vehicle but said he fled into the bush after the police confrontation and intended to report the kidnapping. Instead, he was arrested and charged with the offence. He also claimed he had remained in the trunk while one hijacker guarded him.

Judgement

The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death under section 3(a) of the Prohibition of Terrorism, Kidnapping, Hostage‑Taking, Use of Offensive Weapons or Explosives and Other Threatening Behaviour Law No. 10 of Abia State, 2009. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the kidnapping was for ransom payment. The court reiterated section 3(a): “Any person who, for the purpose of payment of ransom, kidnaps and takes another hostage is guilty of an offence.”

What Constitutes the Offence of Kidnapping

Section 3(a) requires that the kidnapping be motivated by an intention to obtain ransom. The offence is complete when the victim is taken against their will, regardless of whether ransom was actually demanded or paid. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to detain the victim for ransom. In this case, the appellant’s conduct and the circumstances clearly indicated a ransom motive, satisfying the statutory elements.

Probable Motivations for Kidnapping

Kidnapping can be driven by ransom, escape from a crime scene, or personal grudges.

Ingredients of Offence of Kidnapping

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the victim was seized and taken away; (b) the victim was taken against their consent; and (c) the act was without lawful excuse.

In this case, the kidnappers were intercepted before reaching their intended destination, so the prosecution did not need to prove an actual ransom demand. The essential elements were established.

The Standard of Proof of Crime and Meaning of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires convincing, compelling, and conclusive evidence, though not absolute certainty.

How to Prove Criminal Intention

Intention can be inferred from conduct, circumstances, and statements. A voluntary confession is the clearest evidence of intent, but such admissions are rare. In this case, the appellant’s conduct and the surrounding facts made it clear that he intended to kidnap for ransom.

The Proper Forum for Attack on Credibility of Witness

Credibility challenges must be made during trial, not in appellate briefs. The appellant failed to challenge PW2’s testimony effectively during cross‑examination.

How to Establish Inconsistency in Evidence of Witness

Inconsistency requires multiple statements from the same witness. The appellant’s claim that PW2’s testimony was inconsistent lacked basis, as no alternate statement was on record.

Effect of Document Marked Rejected

Once a document is rejected, it remains inadmissible for the remainder of that trial.

The Primary Duty of Trial Court to Evaluate Evidence and Ascribe Probative Value Thereto

The trial court is best positioned to assess witness credibility. It correctly found the prosecution’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt based on PW2 and PW4’s testimony.

Notable Pronouncement

On the seriousness of kidnapping the elderly and the court’s duty to protect the vulnerable:

Per John Inyang Okoro, J.S.C. at page 610, paras. A‑D:

“Kidnapping, in any form, is a heinous offence, but targeting a 98‑year‑old woman for ransom reveals a depth of depravity that shocks the conscience. The perpetrators, young men who disregard the sanctity of age, have destroyed the respect owed to elders. Kidnapping erodes trust, undermines community security, and threatens the bonds that hold society together. This conviction and sentence should deter others from such reprehensible acts. The court will not tolerate these crimes and will hold perpetrators accountable. It is our duty to protect the vulnerable, uphold the law, and preserve our society’s values.”

Conclusion and Suggestions

The prevalence of kidnapping as a commercial venture is alarming. While some states impose the death penalty, this alone is insufficient. Effective solutions include deploying technology, funding law enforcement, fostering inter‑agency collaboration, and engaging youth in formal and informal sectors.

A comprehensive overhaul of the national security architecture is urgently needed to promote peace and development. Political actors should cease arming youths for contests, as this fuels criminal activity and undermines justice. Strengthening data regimes, linking NIN to SIM cards, enforcing a cashless economy, and monitoring ransom payments through BVN and NIN can help track illicit transactions. Enhanced community policing, specialized anti‑kidnapping units, and faster judicial processes are also essential.

Border security must be tightened to curb weapon proliferation. Community and social interventions—such as empowering local security, job creation, and public awareness—are critical to reduce youth crime incentives and improve safety. Increased patrols and mobile units in high‑risk zones should be implemented.

Ultimately, the government must end ransom payments and adopt policies that discourage or prohibit them, supported by political will and anti‑corruption measures within security agencies.

Ebun‑Olu Adegboruwa, SAN