In a move that will please the vigilante-minded but terrify the fiscal hawks, Nigeria has executed four men convicted of slaughtering worshippers in a church attack. Justice, they call it. But let us examine the ledger, because in the city of London we know that every pound spent on retribution is a pound not spent on prevention.
First, the facts. Four individuals, found guilty of murdering parishioners in a violent assault on a place of worship, have been put to death. The Nigerian government, facing an insurgency that has chipped away at its credibility as much as its GDP, decided to send a clear signal. But what exactly is that signal worth? Market efficiency suggests that capital punishment is a poor deterrent. Studies from the United States, where execution rates have plummeted, show no corresponding rise in murder rates. In fact, the cost of the appeals process alone could fund hundreds of police patrols. Nigeria, grappling with inflation and a depreciating naira, cannot afford such indulgence.
Consider the opportunity cost. The resources poured into these four trials and executions might have been better deployed in intelligence gathering, community policing, or deradicalisation programmes. The government's own statistics show that attacks on churches have not decreased despite previous executions. Capital flight, always a concern in emerging markets, is not stemmed by spectacles of state vengeance. Investors want stability, not theatrical displays of power.
Moreover, there is the question of central bank policy. The Central Bank of Nigeria has been fighting a losing battle against inflation, currently hovering above 20%. Every headline that presents Nigeria as a place where the state kills its own citizens, even criminals, does little to inspire confidence. The bond market is watching. Gilt yields in the UK have remained stubbornly low because the BoE has credibility. Nigeria's sovereign debt, by contrast, trades at distressed levels. This is not justice; it is a drag on fiscal responsibility.
One must also question the efficiency of the judicial process. In a system where corruption is rife and due process is often a luxury, executing the convicted is a permanent error. What if new evidence emerges? What if the trial was flawed? The market hates uncertainty, and irreversible punishments introduce a volatility that no risk manager can hedge. The cost of a wrongful execution, in terms of reputation and potential compensation, is unquantifiable.
Of course, there is the emotional argument: the families of the victims deserve closure. But closure is not a financial instrument. It does not shore up the currency or lower the cost of borrowing. It is a luxury that a nation on the brink of fiscal collapse cannot afford to subsidise. Better to channel that anger into productive investments in security and economic growth.
In conclusion, Nigeria's execution of these four men is a short-term PR win for a government desperate to appear tough. But the bottom line is clear: it is a costly, inefficient, and ultimately futile tool for combating terrorism. The market will judge this not as justice, but as a misallocation of scarce resources. Until Nigeria prioritises prevention over punishment, the violence will continue, and the nation's credit rating will suffer accordingly.
