Divergent views have emerged among the Federal Government, northern leaders, and legal practitioners over proposals to grant amnesty to terrorists operating in Northern Nigeria.
The debate follows plans by Katsina State Governor, Dikko Radda, to grant amnesty to about 70 terrorists as part of an agreement aimed at restoring peace in parts of the state affected by banditry.
Reacting to the development, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) stated that state governors possess constitutional powers to grant pardon, provided the offences were prosecuted under state laws.
In a statement to Vanguard, the Special Adviser to the President on Communications and Publicity in the AGF’s office, Kamarudeen Ogundele, said governors could exercise the power of clemency where applicable.
The position was echoed by the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro, SAN, who noted that while governors have broad powers of pardon, such discretion must be exercised with regard to public policy and public perception.
Pedro, however, cautioned that granting clemency to convicted terrorists could send the wrong signal, stressing that Lagos State does not grant pardon to offenders convicted of certain serious crimes.
Lawyers dispute governors’ powers
Senior lawyers, however, disagreed with the AGF’s position, arguing that terrorism is a federal offence beyond the powers of state governors.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kunle Edun, said terrorism is governed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, a federal law, and therefore falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Another SAN, Dayo Akinlaja, stated that governors can only grant pardon for offences created under state laws and tried in state courts.
Similarly, lawyer Olugbenga Ephraim said the powers of governors under Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution apply strictly to state offences, adding that any amnesty for terrorism would be unconstitutional.
Abuja-based lawyer, Nasiru Suleiman, added that while governors may engage uncharged suspects through non-kinetic measures, they lack powers to pardon or grant amnesty to individuals charged or convicted of terrorism.
Northern groups, religious leaders react
Several northern socio-cultural, religious and civil society groups strongly opposed the proposal, warning that amnesty for terrorists could undermine justice and embolden criminality.
The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) described the proposal as premature and ill-defined, insisting that amnesty could only be considered after the state had decisively defeated terrorism.
ACF spokesman, Prof. Muhammad Tukur Baba, questioned how justice would be served for victims if perpetrators were granted amnesty.
The Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) also rejected blanket amnesty, saying it was unsustainable and risked legitimising criminal acts. Its National Leader, Jamilu Charanchi, said any rehabilitation programme must be selective and carefully implemented.
The Middle Belt Forum (MBF) and the Northern States Christian Elders Forum (NOSCEF) similarly opposed amnesty, describing it as dangerous and unjust to victims of attacks.
Religious leaders across the region also expressed mixed reactions, with many opposing amnesty and calling for strict enforcement of the law, while a few suggested dialogue and rehabilitation for genuinely repentant individuals.
Overall, stakeholders remain sharply divided, with strong opposition from northern leaders and legal experts who insist that accountability and justice, rather than amnesty, remain key to addressing insecurity in the region.
