There are growing disagreements among the Federal Government, northern leaders, and legal experts over proposals to grant amnesty to terrorists and bandits operating in Northern Nigeria.
The controversy follows plans by Katsina State Governor, Dikko Radda, to grant amnesty to about 70 terrorists as part of a peace agreement aimed at ending insecurity in the state and neighbouring areas. The proposal has sparked widespread reactions across political, legal, religious, and civil society groups.
Reacting to the development, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) stated that governors possess constitutional powers to grant pardons, provided the offences were prosecuted under state laws. A spokesperson in the AGF’s office, Mr. Kamarudeen Ogundele, explained that governors could exercise such powers where applicable.
Similarly, Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro, SAN, affirmed that governors have the prerogative of mercy under the Constitution. However, he stressed that such powers must be exercised with caution, considering public opinion, public policy, and the potential implications for justice and deterrence. He warned that granting amnesty to terrorists could send the wrong signal and undermine public confidence.
However, several senior lawyers strongly disagreed, arguing that terrorism is a federal offence governed by federal laws, particularly the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. Senior Advocates of Nigeria, including Kunle Edun and Dayo Akinlaja, maintained that state governors lack the constitutional authority to grant amnesty or pardon for terrorism-related offences, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the Federal High Court.
Northern socio-political and religious groups also expressed strong opposition to the amnesty proposal. Organizations such as the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG), Middle Belt Forum (MBF), and Northern States Christian Elders Forum described the move as premature, dangerous, and unjust to victims of terrorism.
The ACF said amnesty would only be meaningful if the state had decisively defeated terrorism, warning that criminal groups are fragmented, ideologically driven by greed, and unlikely to honour peace agreements. The CNG cautioned that blanket amnesty could legitimise criminality and demoralise security agencies, while MBF described any support for amnesty as an injustice to victims.
Religious leaders from both Christian and Muslim communities largely rejected the idea, insisting that justice and accountability were necessary to deter future violence. Many warned that negotiating with armed groups responsible for killings and kidnappings would only embolden criminals.
While a few voices suggested dialogue and rehabilitation for genuinely repentant individuals, the overwhelming consensus among northern leaders and legal experts was that granting amnesty to terrorists would not end insecurity but instead worsen the crisis
