A growing debate is unfolding across Northern Nigeria over plans by some state governments to grant amnesty to suspected terrorists and bandits as part of peace negotiations. The controversy intensified after reports that Katsina State Governor, Dikko Radda, is considering amnesty for about 70 fighters under a local agreement aimed at restoring calm in troubled communities.
Fueling the argument further, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation stated that governors possess constitutional powers to grant pardon—if the offences were prosecuted under state laws. The Lagos State Attorney-General, Lawal Pedro, SAN, echoed this position but warned that such decisions must reflect public opinion and broader public policy considerations.
However, several senior lawyers strongly disagreed, insisting that terrorism is a federal offence under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of state governors. Senior Advocate Kunle Edun argued that only the Federal Government can exercise authority over terrorism-related prosecutions and any associated clemency.
This legal dispute mirrors deep divisions among Northern leaders, religious bodies, and civic groups. Organisations including the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Middle Belt Forum (MBF), Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG), Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), and Northern States Christian Elders Forum (NOSCEF) largely rejected the idea of amnesty, describing it as premature, dangerous, and unjust to victims.
Many leaders argued that granting forgiveness without accountability would erode public trust, demoralise security forces, and encourage further violence. They questioned how communities devastated by killings, kidnappings, and ransom demands would perceive a policy that allows perpetrators to return to society without punishment.
Yet, a minority voice within the region, including Nomadic Rights Concern (NORIC) and some Islamic scholars, supported exploring amnesty if it could genuinely secure peace. They suggested dialogue and understanding the grievances of armed groups before dismissing non-kinetic approaches.
For critics, past amnesty programmes—such as those introduced during the Yar’Adua administration—did little to halt criminality in the long term. They argue that the region’s security crisis requires firm justice, stronger security responses, and prosecution rather than negotiation.
At the heart of the debate lies a difficult question: whether peace should come through reconciliation or through strict enforcement of the law. As insecurity continues to disrupt daily life across the North, the disagreement over amnesty reveals how complex and emotionally charged the path to stability has become.
