metro

Bandit Leader Seeks Exchange Deal for Release of Retired General Rabe Abubakar

Published

3 months ago

June 2, 2026

Bandit Leader Seeks Exchange Deal for Release of Retired General Rabe Abubakar

Katsina State, Nigeria – A notorious bandit leader, Kachallah Muhammad, has established direct communication with the family of the abducted retired senior military officer, Major General Rabe Abubakar Batsari (retd.), demanding the immediate release of his relatives allegedly held in government custody by Nigerian security authorities. The retired Major General and his wife, Hajiya Amina Abubakar, were abducted on Saturday, May 30, 2026, while travelling along the Marabar Musawa–Kafinsoli Road in Matazu Local Government Area of Katsina State with their driver, Abdullahi Sa’idu. According to witnesses, armed gunmen emerged from hiding, blocked the road, and opened fire on the couple’s vehicle, forcing it to a halt before abducting the retired officer and his wife into a nearby forest. The driver reportedly escaped despite being hit by gunfire.

A senior local government official in Batsari, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, confirmed to Daily Trust that Kachallah Muhammad opened a line of communication with the family on Monday morning, June 1, 2026 — two days after the abduction. The official confirmed that he personally spoke with the abducted General during the conversation facilitated by the bandit leader. “I spoke with Major General Rabe through Kachallah Muhammad. He told us that he is hale and hearty and that his wife is also fine,” the official said. According to the source, the retired General assured his family and associates that they are being adequately taken care of by their captors — a development that has somewhat eased anxiety among relatives and residents of the area.

The official further disclosed that during the interaction, Kachallah Muhammad made his demands clear, insisting on the release of his relatives, whom he claimed were being held by Nigerian security authorities. “He said what he wants is the immediate release of his relatives in government custody,” the official added. Notably, the bandit leader also expressed a willingness to return to negotiations, indicating openness to dialogue aimed at restoring peace in Matazu and other areas under his influence. “He said he is ready to go back to the negotiation table to achieve peace in Matazu and neighbouring communities,” the official stated.

READ ALSO:

Kachallah Muhammad (also spelled Kachalla Muhammadu) is a feared gang leader operating in parts of Katsina State, particularly in Matazu, Musawa, Kankia and Charanchi local government areas. He is believed to be under 30 years old and hails from Kogon Maidawa settlement in the Sayaya District of Matazu Local Government Area, where members of his family still reside. According to investigation reports, the initial attack was carried out by a bandit group known as “KB” near Zakin Baure village, close to Matazu town. The kidnappers were initially unaware of General Abubakar’s identity — their primary objective was to capture a senior government official or a wealthy individual to demand ransom. After the KB group seized the couple, the General was handed over to Kachallah Muhammad, who is now believed to be holding him at an undisclosed hideout.

According to an audio recording that previously circulated on social media, Muhammad was reportedly among bandit leaders who embraced a peace agreement brokered by the Katsina State Government. He claimed that after accepting the peace deal, he worked to protect communities in Matazu, Musawa, Kankia, and Charanchi local government areas from attacks by armed groups. However, his relationship with authorities deteriorated after troops from Kano State reportedly raided Jikamshi market, arrested some of his associates, and seized his cattle. He alleged that despite his efforts, neither his men nor the livestock were returned. The raid was reportedly carried out without the approval of security agencies or the Katsina State Government. It was after this incident that Kachallah Muhammad resumed launching severe attacks in the area, including leading an assault on Jikamshi town that resulted in the loss of many lives.

The bandit leader’s demand for the release of his relatives raises familiar questions about government negotiation strategies with criminal gangs — a subject of intense debate following Katsina State Governor Ahmed Aliyu’s recent “Katsina Declaration” on banditry. On May 29, 2026, just one day before General Abubakar’s abduction, Governor Aliyu declared: “We will not negotiate with any criminal, nor will we accept any offer from them unless they surrender unconditionally.” The Governor’s position explicitly rejects the approach of previous administrations. His predecessor, Governor Aminu Masari, had experimented with negotiation and amnesty initiatives, hoping that engagement and concessions would lead to an end to banditry. However, the armed groups reneged on the agreements, regrouped, rearmed, and returned to the forests with renewed audacity.

READ ALSO:

However, just months before the Governor’s declaration, in January 2026, the Katsina State government had justified its decision to facilitate the release of 70 suspected bandits, describing the move as essential to consolidating community-driven peace agreements with “repentant bandits” in several local government areas. The Commissioner for Internal Security and Home Affairs, Nasir Muazu, had defended the initiative at the time, stating that the strategy had already yielded measurable outcomes, including the release of nearly 1,000 abducted persons across multiple LGAs including Safana, Sabuwa, Faskari, Dan Musa, Malumfashi, and Jibiya. The apparent contradiction between the state’s January 2026 policy of releasing suspected bandits and Governor Aliyu’s May 2026 declaration of “no negotiation without unconditional surrender” highlights the complex and evolving security strategy in Katsina State. As of this report, authorities have yet to officially comment on how — or if — this policy will apply to the ongoing hostage situation involving the retired Major General.

Relatives and residents of Batsari have expressed deep concern over the abduction of the retired senior military officer, describing the incident as a devastating blow to both his family and the community that has benefited from his years of service and philanthropy. Mariya Ibrahim, a relative, said the retired General was travelling to Katsina for a wedding with his wife when they were abducted. “He served this country with dedication and deserves protection even in retirement. We want him and his wife rescued alive and unharmed,” she said. Another relative, Aisha Abubakar Batsari, described the retired officer as the pillar of the extended family and pleaded for urgent intervention to secure his release.

Ibrahim Mamman Batsari, a resident, warned: “If a retired senior military officer can be kidnapped, then ordinary citizens are even more vulnerable. Government must rise to its responsibility.” A community leader, Haruna Mai Maganin Kwari Batsari, said the retired officer was expected in the town on the day of the incident to discuss community matters, highlighting his continued active involvement in community development projects in Batsari even after leaving military service.

A security expert, Abubakar Ibrahim, described the incident as a sign of dangerous escalation in Katsina State. “The kidnapping of a retired Major General shows how emboldened bandits have become. It exposes the vulnerability of major highways and rural communities. If urgent and decisive action is not taken, the situation could further deteriorate,” he warned.

The Nigerian Army has confirmed the abduction and stated that efforts are now underway to rescue the couple and track down their captors. General Abubakar served as Defence Headquarters spokesperson between 2015 and 2017 and later as Director of Defence Information (DDI) , making him a well-known figure in Nigeria’s military establishment. As of Tuesday, June 2, 2026, negotiations are allegedly ongoing with intermediaries linked to Kachallah Muhammad in an effort to secure the safe release of Major General Abubakar and his wife. Authorities have yet to officially comment on the reported demand for the release of the bandit’s relatives.

The abduction comes amid escalating violence in Katsina State. Just days before the General’s abduction, on Friday, May 29, 2026, armed men reportedly raided Kiliya village in Dutsinma Local Government Area, killing at least 16 people. Katsina remains one of the states most affected by banditry and kidnapping in Nigeria’s North-West region, where criminal gangs frequently carry out kidnappings for ransom, cattle rustling, and attacks on rural communities. The abduction of a retired two-star general — a former Defence spokesperson — represents a significant escalation in the security crisis, signaling that even high-profile retired military officers are no longer safe from the reach of bandits operating in the region.

Bandit Leader Seeks Exchange Deal for Release of Retired General Rabe Abubakar

Related Topics:bandit Featured Rabe Abubakar release

Up Next

Children Witness Horror as Father Kills Mother, Leaves Body in Tricycle in Rivers

Don't Miss

Eight Dead, 10 Wounded as Gunmen Attack Birthday Celebration in Plateau

metro

Security Forces Rescue 10 NYSC Members from Kogi Forest

Published

7 hours ago

August 31, 2026

Trends Admin

Security Forces Rescue 10 NYSC Members from Kogi Forest

Joint Police, Military, and DSS Operation Frees Abducted Corps Members; Search Continues for 5 Others

Security forces have successfully rescued ten National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) members who were abducted by suspected kidnappers in Kogi State. The victims were freed from Egume Forest in Ofu Local Government Area during a coordinated joint operation. The operation involved personnel from the Nigeria Police Force, the military, the Department of State Services (DSS), and other auxiliary security forces. According to the Kogi State Police Command, the rescue was achieved through a sustained, intelligence-driven operation aimed at securing the safe recovery of the abducted corps members and dismantling criminal elements operating in the area.

The Kogi State Police Command confirmed the rescue in a statement issued on Monday by the Police Public Relations Officer, ASP Saliu Oyiza Afusat. The command described it as a “sustained, coordinated and intelligence-driven operation” by security agencies. The operation was launched not only to secure the safe release of the victims but also to dismantle criminal elements operating in the area and bring those responsible to justice. The command disclosed that the operation was still ongoing as security personnel continued efforts to locate and rescue other victims who may still be in the hands of the kidnappers.

READ ALSO:

The Commissioner of Police in Kogi State, CP Naziru Bello Kankarofi, commended personnel from the police, military, DSS and other supporting forces for their gallantry, professionalism and resilience during the operation. He also appreciated residents of the affected communities for their cooperation and timely provision of credible information, which was critical to the success of the ongoing security operations. The police urged members of the public to remain calm and vigilant while encouraging them to report suspicious movements or information that could assist security agencies in rescuing the remaining victims.

Security agencies continue to comb the surrounding forest for any remaining victims and have intensified search-and-rescue operations to locate them. The police urged members of the public to remain calm and vigilant, and to promptly report any suspicious movements or information that could assist in rescuing the remaining victims and apprehending the perpetrators. The command assured residents that all available operational resources were being deployed to ensure the safe recovery of the remaining victims and the arrest of the perpetrators. The police said further updates would be provided as operational circumstances permit.

Security Forces Rescue 10 NYSC Members from Kogi Forest

metro

IPOB Gives FG 14-Day Ultimatum to List Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal or Face Election Boycott

Published

7 hours ago

August 31, 2026

Trends Admin

IPOB Gives FG 14-Day Ultimatum to List Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal or Face Election Boycott

Separatist group accuses government of avoiding court after rushing to convict Kanu, demands urgent listing of appeal

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a 14-day ultimatum to the Federal Government, demanding the immediate listing and hearing of detained leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal, or face a boycott of the 2027 general election across the South-East and other parts of what the group describes as “Biafraland”. The ultimatum was issued on Monday by IPOB’s Head of Directorate of State (DOS), Mazi Chris Nwaogu, in a video broadcast. The development follows renewed concerns by Kanu’s family over the delay in hearing the appeal against the conviction and life sentence handed to the IPOB leader. The family recently disclosed that Kanu wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Court of Appeal, seeking the immediate listing and hearing of his pending cases.

Nwaogu accused the Federal Government of avoiding the court after moving swiftly to secure Kanu’s conviction. “The Federal Government has not filed a Respondent’s brief, they have not listed the appeal, they have not come to court. A country that rushed to convict is now too frightened to defend the conviction,” he said. He warned that the group would consider mobilising for a boycott of the 2027 elections if the government failed to act within the stipulated period. “We are giving them 14 days to list Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal, if they refuse, we will consider boycotting the coming elections across Biafraland and beyond. A government that cannot face its Court of Appeal has no right to demand our votes,” Nwaogu added.

READ ALSO:

Nwaogu also criticised the handling of Kanu’s case by the Nigerian judiciary, alleging that the proceedings from the trial court through the appellate stages had exposed serious concerns about the country’s judicial system. “This judicial conspiracy through the trial court to the remittal and the present silence will shame the Chief Justice of Nigeria and all lawyers who still pretend this system is healthy. This case will either reset the Nigerian judiciary or expose it,” he said. He particularly faulted the Supreme Court’s decision which overturned Kanu’s discharge and acquittal by the Court of Appeal, insisting that the apex court exceeded its constitutional powers by pronouncing on individual counts that had already been quashed by the Court of Appeal. “Justice Lawal Garba, JSC, crossed a line that the Constitution does not allow. This is the heart of the matter,” Nwaogu stated, arguing that a court “cannot manufacture jurisdiction that has ceased to exist.”

The Okwu-Kanu family had earlier raised the alarm over the delay in hearing Kanu’s appeal against his conviction. In a statement, the family disclosed that Kanu had separately petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Court of Appeal, requesting the immediate listing and hearing of his pending cases. The family drew a direct comparison to October 2022, when the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment discharging Kanu and quashing the criminal counts against him. According to the family, the Federal Government obtained a stay of execution just 14 days after that judgment, preventing Kanu from regaining his freedom. “Fourteen days. In fourteen days, the machinery of the Court of Appeal moved from an acquittal-equivalent discharge to a civil stay that kept Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in detention,” the family stated. The family disclosed plans to formally notify the United States Congress, Israeli Knesset, and International Bar Association of what it described as an “unacceptable delay” in the handling of Kanu’s cases.

Kanu commenced proceedings before the Supreme Court on November 7, 2025, challenging the legality of the apex court’s December 15, 2023 remittal judgment. According to the family, the Federal Government was duly served but has not filed a substantive response more than nine months later. There is also a separate appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging Kanu’s November 20, 2025 conviction and life sentence. Kanu’s Appellant’s Brief was filed on June 5, 2026, and served on the Federal Government, but the prescribed period for filing the Respondent’s Brief has elapsed without one being filed. In a related development, the Federal Government has withdrawn its cross-appeal seeking the death penalty against Kanu. Kanu’s Special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, confirmed that the government formally communicated its decision not to pursue the aspect of the appeal seeking to replace the life sentence with capital punishment.

IPOB Gives FG 14-Day Ultimatum to List Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal or Face Election Boycott

metro

Tinubu’s FBI records: Reno Omokri explains why President opposes release

Published

7 hours ago

August 31, 2026

Trends Admin

Reno Omokri

Tinubu’s FBI records: Reno Omokri explains why President opposes release

Former presidential aide Reno Omokri has defended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s opposition to the public release of records held by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the existence of government files does not automatically mean that an individual has a criminal record.

Omokri made the submission on Monday, August 31, 2026, in a statement published on X while reacting to the renewed controversy surrounding Tinubu’s efforts to prevent the release of unredacted records concerning him.

The controversy follows an ongoing legal battle in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where Tinubu’s lawyers are opposing a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for access to records held by US law-enforcement agencies.

Omokri argued that the FBI maintains extensive records on individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with criminal convictions or wrongdoing.

He said the FBI may have information on US citizens, residents and foreign nationals whose names have been subjected to background checks for purposes including visa applications and other government processes.

“This is because the FBI conducts MANDATORY background screenings on behalf of the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security on US visa applicants,” Omokri said.

He argued that a name appearing in an FBI database could generate numerous pages of records without those documents necessarily containing evidence of criminal conduct.

“Thus, as a US citizen or resident, or even as a foreign national, if your name is run through the FBI databases, it is likely to bring up hundreds of pages of records. This does not mean that the records are criminal. In most cases, they will be benign,” he said.

Omokri further argued that law-enforcement records can contain highly sensitive personal information, including biometric, biographical and financial details.

READ ALSO:

He questioned whether Nigerians would want such private information released publicly or handed to political opponents simply because the person involved is a public official.

“Would you, as an individual, want your private records released to your political opponents, even if they were non-criminal?” he asked.

His comments came amid renewed attention to Tinubu’s legal challenge against the release of unredacted FBI and DEA records.

The President’s lawyers have argued that US privacy laws and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) protect information contained in the requested documents.

They have also challenged the argument that Tinubu’s status as Nigeria’s President creates a sufficient public-interest basis for releasing otherwise protected personal information.

The legal dispute followed Greenspan’s FOIA efforts to obtain records relating to Tinubu from several US government agencies.

The requested material is connected to historical investigations involving Tinubu and dates largely to the period when he was involved in business and political activities in the United States.

The FBI and other US agencies have previously relied on various FOIA exemptions when dealing with requests for sensitive investigative records. Such exemptions can cover personal privacy, confidential sources, investigative methods and information whose disclosure could expose individuals to harm.

The current US case is therefore a dispute over access to government records, rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

Omokri also sought to counter claims that Tinubu had previously been identified by US authorities as having a criminal record.

He referred to correspondence between the US Consulate in Lagos and then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun in February 2003.

According to Omokri, Balogun had written to the US authorities seeking information on whether the FBI had criminal records concerning Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

Omokri said the US Consulate responded the following day after conducting a check of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.

Contemporary reporting on the correspondence indicates that the check returned no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants concerning Tinubu.

Omokri described the response as an “all clear” and cited it as evidence supporting his position that Tinubu had not been identified as having a criminal arrest or warrant in that particular US database check.

However, the 2003 correspondence should not be interpreted as a blanket declaration that no other investigative, administrative or government records concerning Tinubu existed.

READ ALSO:

The distinction is important because the current FOIA litigation concerns broader records held by US agencies.

Omokri said he also travelled to Chicago in 2022, while he was associated with the political opposition, to investigate questions surrounding Tinubu’s academic and other records.

He challenged anyone who doubts the authenticity of the 2003 US Embassy correspondence to seek clarification from the US Embassy.

The controversy over Tinubu’s US records also has a separate history dating back to the 1990s.

In 1993, a US federal court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 connected to a bank account associated with Tinubu.

US authorities alleged that the money represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or was connected to prohibited financial transactions.

The case was a civil forfeiture proceeding, rather than a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction.

The issue later became a major part of legal challenges surrounding Tinubu’s eligibility and qualifications during the 2023 Nigerian presidential election litigation.

The Presidential Election Petition Court acknowledged the forfeiture proceedings but held that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the United States.

The court therefore rejected arguments that the forfeiture amounted to a criminal conviction that could disqualify Tinubu from contesting the Nigerian presidency.

The distinction between civil forfeiture and criminal conviction has remained central to the political debate over Tinubu’s history in the United States.

Tinubu’s supporters have maintained that the forfeiture proceeding did not result in a criminal conviction, while his critics have continued to demand greater transparency concerning the circumstances surrounding the funds.

The latest FOIA case has now brought the issue back into public attention, with Greenspan seeking additional records from US government agencies and Tinubu’s lawyers asking the court to prevent or restrict their release.

Omokri maintains that the public should distinguish between an FBI file and a criminal record.

“President Bola Tinubu has no criminal record in the United States, Nigeria, or anywhere else,” he said.

READ ALSO:

He argued that the existence of records in an FBI database cannot, on its own, establish criminal wrongdoing.

Opposition figures, however, have taken a different position.

African Democratic Congress (ADC) spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi has argued that Tinubu should allow the records to be released if they contain nothing damaging, saying disclosure could help settle the controversy.

Other opposition voices have similarly demanded greater transparency, arguing that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in information concerning the background of a sitting President.

The disagreement therefore centres on the balance between privacy rights, government-record protections and public interest.

Tinubu’s lawyers are seeking to rely on protections available under US law, while Greenspan is pursuing access through the FOIA process.

The US court will ultimately determine what records, if any, can be released and which portions may legally remain withheld or redacted.

The current litigation does not itself establish that Tinubu committed a criminal offence, nor does it constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian President.

For now, the dispute remains focused on whether US government agencies should disclose additional records concerning Tinubu and whether privacy and other FOIA exemptions justify withholding or redacting the material.

Omokri’s intervention has added another layer to the debate, with the former presidential aide insisting that FBI records should not automatically be portrayed as evidence of criminal conduct.

The controversy is expected to remain politically significant in Nigeria as the US court considers the competing arguments over transparency, privacy and access to government records involving the Nigerian President.