When the news filtered in that Major General Rabe Abubakar had been abducted alongside his wife, it jolted me in a manner that I still do not fully understand. Seeing him in a video in such a degraded condition in the kidnappers’ den pierced my heart. That was an Army General being treated in that manner.
As if that was not enough, the announcement of his death came from the blues. I was shocked. His death in kidnappers’ captivity is a tragedy that should trouble every Nigerian. If a man who once rose to the highest ranks of the military could fall victim to criminal elements and die while in their custody, what hope is there for ordinary citizens?
Yet, beyond the pain of the loss itself, the statement issued by the Katsina State Government announcing the retired officer’s death has generated almost as many questions as it sought to answer. Rather than providing closure, the official communication appears to have left significant gaps that deserve clarification. In matters as sensitive as this, transparency is not merely desirable; it is necessary.
The government, in a statement issued on Saturday and signed by the state Commissioner for Internal Security and Home Affairs, Dr Nasiru Mu’Azu, confirmed that the retired general died in bandits’ captivity despite its efforts and those of security agencies to secure his safe release. It went on to sympathise with the family of the deceased and, as expected, promised to work with the Federal Government and security agencies to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
Rather than ending the statement there, however, the state government took a dangerous dive into what has now become the subject of widespread criticism. Most significantly, the government declared that the retired general died “a natural death from complications of diabetes and hypertension”. It is this conclusion that has raised the most questions.
One of the questions concerned Nigerians have been asking is how the state government established the cause of death. Right-thinking persons are wondering whether an autopsy was conducted before the government made such a declaration and whether any qualified medical practitioner examined the body. Cause-of-death determinations are ordinarily based on medical evidence. The statement presented the cause of death as an established fact, yet it did not explain how that conclusion was reached.
Meanwhile, the deceased’s son had since stated that his father was not diabetic. Even if he was, for someone with underlying health challenges, as claimed by the government, to be held hostage for a prolonged period and kept away from medication and proper medical care, could such a death simply be described as natural? That is another question that deserves an answer.
Another issue that has remained largely unanswered concerns who informed the government of the death. It would be interesting to know whether the bandits contacted government officials or security agencies to break the news, or whether the information was relayed through intermediaries. Somebody must have informed the government not only of the death itself but also of the alleged cause of death, which it subsequently presented to the public as fact.
It is also in the public domain that the corpse has since been buried by the family. What we do not know, however, is who retrieved the body from the bandits’ fortress and how it was recovered. Was the corpse handed over to security personnel, community leaders, or family representatives? This crucial aspect of the story is missing from the official narrative. It also gives rise to further questions, including where and when the body was recovered and under what circumstances the handover took place.
If the intention was for the bandits to portray themselves as being “humane” by releasing the corpse for a befitting burial, why was his wife not released to accompany her husband’s remains home and participate in the burial rites? The circumstances raise legitimate concerns that deserve explanation. I am happy that the woman has finally been rescued. She appears to be the only person who will have a reliable account of what transpired in that captivity. That probably explains why her abductors reportedly shot her when it was clear to them that the game was over.
It is clear that public confidence is already strained by worsening insecurity across the country. Rumours thrive where facts are incomplete. That is precisely what has happened in the case of the Katsina State Government’s statement. Government communication should answer questions, not create new ones, because credibility depends on openness, transparency, and accountability.
Of course, the bigger issue remains the state of insecurity in the country. A retired major general dying in kidnappers’ captivity is a very big deal. That fact alone is a damning commentary on the security challenge confronting Nigeria. The tragedy highlights the reach, confidence, and brutality of criminal groups operating across the country. Beyond the unanswered questions surrounding his death lies a deeper national problem that demands urgent attention.
Nigerians deserve more than a brief announcement. The family deserves clarity, while the public deserves transparency. Sensitive incidents such as this require detailed and credible explanations, particularly when official accounts raise more questions than they answer.
There is no doubt that no statement can erase the pain of losing a husband, father, soldier, and citizen in such tragic circumstances. However, public confidence demands that difficult questions be answered honestly and completely. How was the cause of death established? Who recovered the body? Who informed the authorities? Where and when was the handover conducted? Why does the government’s account appear to differ from that of the deceased’s son?
These are not attempts to politicise a tragedy; they are legitimate questions arising from an official statement that leaves important gaps unfilled. Until those questions are addressed satisfactorily, the death of Major General Rabe Abubakar will remain not only a national tragedy but also a source of lingering doubt, uncertainty, and public concern.
