FG, Northern leaders, lawyers differ on amnesty for terrorists
SKAiF NewsNG SNN
By Soni Daniel, Northern Region Editor, Ademola Akinyemi, Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Henry Ojelu,Peter Duru, Bashir Bello, Ibrahim Hassan, Haruna Aliyu, Umar Yusuf, Marie-Therese Nanlong, Musa Anabi & Edwin Philip
ABUJA — Northern leaders have disagreed with the federal and state governments over amnesty being granted to terrorists who have turned the region into a killing field.
The leaders’ angst is coming against the backdrop of plans by Katsina State governor, Dikko Radda, to grant amnesty to 70 terrorists, as part of an agreement reached between the state government and terrorists terrorising the state and other parts of the north.
The anger of the northern leaders was accentuated by the position of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, on the matter, as Special Adviser to the President (Communications and Publicity) in the AGF’s office, Mr Kamarudeen Ogundele, yesterday gave vent to governors’ powers to grant such a pardon.
”Governors have constitutional powers to grant pardon, if the terrorists were prosecuted by their respective states,” Ogundele said in a terse reaction sent to Vanguard yesterday.
The AGF’s position was corroborated by the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Lagos State, Lawal Pedro, SAN, who reiterated that governors had powers to grant such pardon but noted that in exercising the power, they (governors) should consider public opinion, public policy and how people would feel.
He said: ”Clemency is a constitutional power granted to governors, and it has no limitation or restriction with respect to offences, whether it’s terrorism, murder or any offence whatsoever.
”But in the exercise of that power, the governor is expected to consider public opinion and public policy and how the people will feel.
”He can exercise that power at his discretion based on that consideration. For instance, in Lagos, our policy on clemency is that we don’t consider pardon for people convicted of sexual offences.
”There is nothing in the law that stops us from granting them amnesty, but because of the prevalence of sexual offences, our policy is not to grant convicted sexual offenders clemency so as not to encourage other offenders.
”In the case of terrorism, too, I will expect governors not to grant amnesty to convicted terrorists so that I will not send the wrong signal.”
Govs can’t grant amnesty on offences under federal laws —Lawyers
However, senior legal practitioners in the country described the granting of amnesty to terrorists by state governors as an anomaly.
In separate interviews with Vanguard, the lawyers maintained that no portion of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, conferred such powers on governors.
They were unanimous in their stance that terrorism, being a federal offence, fell outside the scope of powers of state governors.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Mr. Kunle Edun, said: “Terrorism is a federal crime under the Terrorism (Prevention & Prohibition) Act, 2022, which is a federal legislation passed by the National Assembly.
“State governments lack the power to grant amnesty, pardon or any form of reprieve to any person arrested, charged, prosecuted or convicted for any offence relating to terrorism, particularly if the person was prosecuted pursuant to the Terrorism Prevention & Prohibition Act.
“The Federal Government, through appropriate federal security agencies, has powers to take over such matter and the suspects from the state government and deal with it as a federal crime.”
Another SAN, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja, said: “Terrorism is a federal offence triable at the Federal High Court. A governor can only grant pardon or amnesty to a person in respect of an offence created by a law of the state.”
Mr. Akinlaja’s position was affirmed by another lawyer, Olugbenga Ephraim, who noted that though governors could pardon offenders, such exercise of power was limited to only state offences.
“It is a constitutional anathema for anyone to contemplate that a state governor has the powers to grant amnesty to terrorists.
“There is no doubt that governors hold powers of prerogative of mercy under section 212 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The section allows them to pardon, respite, substitute punishment, or remit penalties.
“However, such powers are only applicable to offences that are created by state laws. A governor cannot grant amnesty to terrorists.
“Terrorism is a federal offence that is governed by federal laws, such as the Terrorism (Prevention) Act. Therefore, the prosecution of suspected insurgents or bandits squarely falls within the remit of the Federal Government, not states.”
On his part, Nasiru Suleiman, an Abuja-based lawyer, argued that governors could pardon suspected terrorists who have not been charged to court.
“There is no portion of the 1999 Constitution that allows any governor to pardon convicted terrorists.
However, if the suspected terrorists have not been charged to court, a governor, as the chief security officer of his state, can deploy any legal means to tackle all forms of insecurity within his territory. This may include the carrot and stick approach.
“But once it concerns a terrorism charge or conviction, no governor or Attorney-General of a state can intervene in such a case, let alone grant amnesty to anyone,” he argued.
The Lagos Attorney-General and lawyers’ position on the issue tallied with that of the Northern leaders of thought and their elite political, religious and tribal organizations who described the activities of terrorists in the region as inimical to its development.
Among those who spoke to our correspondents on the matter, were leaders of Arewa Consultative Forum, ACF; Middle Belt Forum, MBF; Coalition of Northern Groups, CNG; Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN; Northern States Christian Elders Forum: Nomadic Rights Concern, NORIC; and some Islamic scholars and leaders in the Northern region.
While most of those interviewed vehemently opposed the idea of granting amnesty to terrorists as a condition for peace, others, such as NORIC, said the idea was good and should be pursued if only that would guarantee peace and security in the land.
Such move is ill-defined — ACF
The Arewa Consultative Forum, in opposing any form of amnesty for bandits and terrorists, insisted that such a move would be premature and ill-defined.
The National Publicity Secretary of the forum, Professor Muhammad Tukur Baba, made it clear that amnesty could only be meaningful when the state had decisively prevailed in the fight against terrorism.
According to him, the current security situation does not support such a move.
Baba said: “We are of the opinion that the amnesty option is ill-defined at the moment. Amnesty will be a viable option only if the state prevails unequivocally in the fight against terrorism. At the moment, such a scenario does not exist.”
He noted that criminal elements holding communities hostage were not united under a central command or ideology, but operate as fragmented, desperate and violent non-state actors driven purely by criminal motives.
“As far as we can see, these groups are not united under any central organisation. Rather, they are gun-holding, trigger-happy evil merchants, each operating within its own territory, uninformed by ideology or any legitimate cause,” he said.
The ACF spokesman expressed doubt that such groups could be effectively brought under any peaceful resolution or amnesty framework, warning that past experiences with negotiations had yielded little or no positive outcomes.
Baba also raised concerns about justice for victims of terrorism, questioning what an amnesty policy would mean for accountability.
“What will amnesty portend for victims? Will it mean no accountability for crimes committed against the state and innocent individuals? That will be gross,” he stated.
It’s unstainable — CNG
Similarly, the National Leader of the Coalition of Northern Groups, CNG, Alhaji Jamilu Charanchi, cautioned against the adoption of blanket or unconditional amnesty for bandits and terrorists, describing it as an unsustainable response to the worsening insecurity in Northern Nigeria.
Charanchi said that though CNG recognised that the primary objective of any amnesty policy was to reduce violence and restore peace, the current security realities made such an approach ineffective if applied indiscriminately.
He said: “CNG recognises that the primary objective of any amnesty policy is to reduce violence and restore peace. However, given the prevailing security realities in Northern Nigeria, blanket or unconditional amnesty for bandits and terrorists is not a sustainable solution to insecurity.”
According to him, granting amnesty without tackling these fundamental issues risks legitimising criminality, eroding public confidence in the justice system and demoralising security personnel who continue to make sacrifices to protect lives and property.
Charanchi stressed that while the coalition does not entirely rule out dialogue or rehabilitation for genuinely repentant individuals, such measures must be approached with caution.
Supporting this, Kebbi State Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Groups, Mr. Manssor Isah Guruza, also rejected planned amnesty for bandits in Northern Nigeria, describing such a move as great injustice to victims of the atrocities of terrorists in the country.
“How can somebody kill your father, son, uncle or brother and just return to the society just like that without paying for his misdeeds?” Guruza queried.
He maintained that a previous amnesty programme introduced by late President Umaru Yar’Adua didn’t stop banditry, otherwise the country would still not be facing the same problem.
“We recommend an unbiased court to try and prosecute bandits and the crushing of those not yet arrested,” Guruza added.
It’s dangerous — NOSCEF
On his part, the Chairman of Northern States Christian Elders Forum, NOSCEF, Elder Sunday Oibe, also opposed any proposal to grant amnesty to bandits and terrorists operating in Northern Nigeria, describing such calls as misguided and dangerous.
Oibe, who also serves as a leader within the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, across the 19 northern states and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, said negotiating with armed groups responsible for killings, kidnappings and destruction of livelihoods will only worsen insecurity in the region.
According to him, bandits and terrorists have “waged war against their own land,” terrorising innocent citizens, killing security personnel and extorting huge sums of money through ransom, and often killing victims even after payments are made.
Oibe said NOSCEF aligned with past positions credited to former military leaders who opposed negotiating with terrorists, insisting that the federal government must demonstrate strong political will by adequately equip and empower security agencies to confront armed groups decisively.
“Our soldiers have the capacity to defeat bandits and terrorists within a short period if they are given all the necessary support,” he said, adding that amnesty will not end terrorism but rather encourage more people to take up arms.
MBF rejects proposal
Also, the Middle Belt Forum, MBF, rejected any proposal to grant amnesty to bandits and terrorists in the north, saying those championing the campaign should be treated as accomplices.
National President of MBF, Dr. Bitrus Pogu, faulted those canvassing the position, wondering why there should be amnesty for any bandit or terrorist.
“A killer should be treated as a killer. And there shouldn’t be any amnesty. Politically motivated support for them, using the word non-kinetic, should stop. I do not believe in that kind of reasoning. A murderer should be treated as a murderer. Dealing with them in any other way is like saying let’s allow this thing to continue.
“These are people who believe that they are going to heaven to get 72 virgins. I think I better take the position of Putin who said ‘it is for God to forgive them but it is for me to send them there so that they will meet God to forgive them or give them virgins.’
“In a modern society, you do not go out, carry guns, killing others and then you talk amnesty. So the lives of the people you killed do not mean anything? Why do we have laws against murder?
“So I do not support any amnesty for such people and the military should give them the coin they deserve. They are killing innocent people unprovoked; they should also be eliminated, so we can have peace in Nigeria.”
A Muslim cleric, Sheik Isah Alarama, who is also the Special Adviser to Adamawa Muslim Council on Internal and External Issues, condemned the thinking that bandits and terrorists should be granted amnesty, arguing that the elements should be subjected to the full weight of the laws of the land.
He accused desperate politicians of killing and destroying the North for their selfish gains, lamenting that ”this is not the North bequeathed to us by its founding fathers.’
Sheik Isah added that those in authority agitating for amnesty to terrorists and bandits are their sponsors.
He maintained that unless something urgent was done about the groups and their sponsors and collaborators, the North in particular and the entire country might be overwhelmed by the terrorists and bandits in the nearest future
But Rev. Dunka Joseph Gomwalk, the CAN, Chairman, Plateau State, kicked against giving amnesty to terrorists in the country. “I do not support the idea of granting amnesty to bandits and terrorists. These are outlaws and criminals who have killed, raped and terrorised people and communities without mercy.
“Families have been left grieving, communities displaced and people traumatised and living in fear. It is the lack of accountability and justice served on perpetrators of such heinous acts that have emboldened them to continue. “The full weight of the law should be administered to them as a deterrent to future acts. Accountability and justice are the only answer to the insecurity in the north.
”When criminals are handled with a soft approach, such as amnesty, the salient message sent to them is that they can have their way and get away with anything.
“When criminals are caught and punished, it sends a strong signal that lawlessness is not permitted and strong consequences would be meted out to offenders. When laws are not enforced, the authorities are perceived to be weak or overwhelmed and sooner or later, other groups of bandits and terrorists would surely arise. “Remember, the actions of such individuals include acts that directly threaten lives and property and put society and communities at high risk,” he said.
In his take on the issue, former Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and former Nigeria’s High Commissioner to Namibia, Amb. Bagudu Hirse, said: “Banditry, kidnapping and terrorism are all birds of the same feather.
”Unfortunately, they have become the biggest enterprises in our country today. I do not, in any way, support amnesty for culprits. I am a very strong advocate of capital punishment (death penalty) for such culprits.
“More so that most of those involved are foreigners from our neighbouring countries, as clearly indicated in recent records.”
Bason Yohanna, the leader of CNG in Plateau State said there should be no talk of granting amnesty to killers and enemies of the people.
The chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria in Kwara State, Bishop Sunday Adewole, also kicked against amnesty for terrorists, saying they do not deserve such reprieve.
It won’s end insecurity — Ilorin Imam
The Chief Imam of Alhaji Issa-Elelu Central Mosque, Ilorin, Imam Abubakar Alyy-Kamal, stoutly opposed granting amnesty to terrorists as a means to end insecurity in Nigeria.
Lending his voice to this, the Chief Imam of Issa Elelu Central Mosque, Imam Abubakar Alyy-Kamal, advocated that the National Assembly initiate a law that bandits caught alive be killed in the presence of their people in order to discourage others from going into what he described as a lucrative business.
“Both the Qur’an and Holy Bible clearly state that whoever that deliberately kills a fellow human being should also be killed. So to this extent, our people in the National Assembly should initiate a law that would make this to happen. That is the only way to end banditry in Nigeria.
”Whoever is advocating amnesty for bandits is an enemy of this country because there’s no way they would stop the lucrative business of killing and destroying for financial gains.’
On his part, Chairman Christian Association of Nigeria, Kwara State Chapter and Bishop of Anglican church Diocese Bishop Sunday Adewole, said:” There’s no way it will solve the problem in this country. By the time they grant them amnesty, they’ll go back to kidnapping and begin to ask for other things.”
Labdo, who is a professor of Islamic Political Thoughts, said before granting the bandits and terrorists amnesty, there was need to engage them to understand their grievances, stressing that this would help find a lasting solution to the lingering insecurity bedeviling the country.
He said: “I am in support of granting amnesty to them because these people are not understood. But before we arrive at amnesty, we have to follow some steps.
“Number one, these people should be listened to, so we can understand why they took up arms against their own people and against their own states and so on.
“But an Islamic scholar, Ustaz Hassan Danmama, called on the government at all levels to implement the spirit and letters of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in dealing with unrepentant bandits terrorissing the citizens.
Ustaz Danmama, who is the vice Imam Wajam’u Rasullulahi Juma’at Mosque, Lafia, Nasarawa State, said: “They should be counselled, advised and preached to because some of them are doing it ignorantly.
The post FG, Northern leaders, lawyers differ on amnesty for terrorists appeared first on Vanguard News.
