Prominent northern leaders and legal experts have rejected plans by some state governments to grant amnesty to terrorists, warning that such moves could undermine justice, worsen insecurity, and exceed constitutional powers.
The disagreement follows a proposal by Katsina State Governor, Dikko Radda, to grant amnesty to about 70 terrorists as part of peace efforts aimed at curbing violent attacks in the state and other parts of Northern Nigeria.
The controversy deepened after the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation stated that governors possess constitutional powers to grant pardon where offenders were prosecuted under state laws. A spokesperson for the office said governors could exercise prerogative of mercy within the scope of the law.
Similarly, the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro, SAN, acknowledged that governors have constitutional authority to grant clemency but cautioned that such power must be exercised with regard to public policy, public sentiment, and security implications.
He noted that while the constitution does not expressly exclude offences such as terrorism, granting amnesty to convicted terrorists could send the wrong signal and discourage accountability.
Lawyers Insist Terrorism Is a Federal Offence
However, several senior lawyers, including Senior Advocates of Nigeria, disagreed, insisting that terrorism is strictly a federal offence governed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
According to them, state governors lack the legal authority to grant amnesty or pardon to individuals charged or convicted under federal laws, as terrorism cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
They stressed that while governors may exercise prerogative of mercy for offences created by state laws, any intervention in terrorism-related cases must come from the Federal Government.
Northern Groups Reject Amnesty Plan
Major northern socio-political, religious, and civil society groups also opposed the proposal, describing it as premature and counterproductive.
The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) said amnesty could only be meaningful after the state has decisively defeated terrorism, warning that armed groups in the region operate as fragmented criminal networks driven by profit rather than ideology.
Similarly, the Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) cautioned against blanket amnesty, saying it could legitimise criminality, erode public trust in the justice system, and demoralise security personnel.
The Middle Belt Forum (MBF), Northern States Christian Elders Forum (NOSCEF), and the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) also rejected the idea, insisting that accountability and enforcement of the law remain the only sustainable solutions to insecurity.
Divided Opinions on Dialogue
While most groups opposed amnesty, a minority of voices argued that dialogue and rehabilitation could be considered for genuinely repentant individuals, provided such efforts are carefully structured and do not undermine justice for victims.
The debate highlights growing tension over how best to address persistent insecurity in Northern Nigeria, with stakeholders sharply divided between punitive and conciliatory approaches.
Post comments (0)