An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Deji Adeyanju, has criticised the practice by some state governors of granting amnesty to terrorists as part of non-kinetic approaches to tackling Nigeria’s worsening security situation, describing such actions as unconstitutional and legally ineffective.
Adeyanju, who leads Deji Adeyanju and Partners, a law firm based in the Federal Capital Territory, made the assertion in a statement issued on Thursday.
His comments come amid escalating insecurity in several parts of the country, particularly in the North-West, North-East and North-Central regions, where banditry, mass kidnappings and terrorist attacks have continued despite sustained military operations.
In response to the challenges, some state governments have resorted to dialogue, negotiations and amnesty programmes, offering pardons, financial incentives and rehabilitation packages to armed groups in exchange for disarmament.
States including Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna and Niger have at different times explored or implemented various forms of amnesty or negotiated settlements with bandit groups, often citing the approach as a pragmatic response to overstretched security agencies and the humanitarian impact of prolonged violence.
While supporters of the initiatives argue that they have resulted in temporary reductions in attacks in some locations, critics insist that such measures embolden criminal elements and weaken the rule of law.
Adeyanju maintained that beyond the policy arguments, state governors lack the constitutional authority to grant amnesty to terrorists.
“Under Section 212 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, a governor’s power of pardon is limited strictly to offences created by laws of the State.
Terrorism, however, is a federal offence governed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act and falls squarely within matters of national security on the exclusive legislative list.
“As such, only the president, acting under Section 175 of the Constitution, can lawfully grant amnesty for terrorism-related offences. Any governor who purports to grant amnesty to persons accused or convicted of terrorism acts ultra vires, and such an amnesty is legally ineffectual.
“This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Others (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222, where the doctrine of covering the field was explored, and it was held that where federal legislation occupies a field of national importance, any inconsistent state action must yield,” he said.
The lawyer further relied on judicial precedents to support his argument, citing decisions of the Supreme Court on matters of national security.
“In Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320, the Supreme Court held that where national security is threatened, individual rights must give way to the collective security and corporate existence of the country.
“Although the case arose in the context of bail, its broader constitutional implication is that matters touching on terrorism and national security are firmly within the exclusive competence of the Federal Government, beyond the reach of state-level political arrangements or concessions,” he said.
Adeyanju also referenced the Federal Government’s handling of militancy in the Niger Delta as a constitutional example of lawful amnesty.
“The 2009 proclamation of amnesty for Niger Delta militants under President Umaru Yar’Adua remains the clearest constitutional precedent. The offences involved were all federal crimes (treason, felony, and economic sabotage).
“The amnesty was therefore issued through a Presidential Proclamation pursuant to Section 175 of the Constitution,” he stated.
While acknowledging the role of state governments in addressing insecurity, Adeyanju cautioned against equating dialogue and rehabilitation efforts with the constitutional power to grant amnesty.
“While state governments may engage in dialogue, facilitate surrender, or support rehabilitation and reintegration initiatives for terrorists, which in my view promote terrorism, they lack the constitutional jurisdiction to grant amnesty for terrorism,” he said.
He warned that allowing sub-national governments to pardon terrorists could weaken Nigeria’s counter-terrorism framework, create conflicting legal regimes and undermine coordinated national security efforts led by the Federal Government.
