Abuja-based lawyer Deji Adeyanju has criticised the decision by some state governors to grant amnesty to terrorists under so-called non-kinetic approaches to Nigeria’s growing insecurity, arguing that such actions have no constitutional or legal foundation.
Adeyanju, who leads Deji Adeyanju and Partners in the Federal Capital Territory, made this position known in a statement released on Thursday.
His remarks come amid escalating insecurity in several parts of the country, especially the North-West, North-East and North-Central regions, where banditry, large-scale abductions and terrorist attacks have continued despite ongoing military campaigns.
To tackle the situation, certain state governments have turned to dialogue, negotiations and amnesty schemes, offering pardons, monetary inducements and rehabilitation programmes to armed groups willing to surrender their weapons.
States including Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna and Niger have at different times initiated or considered such arrangements with bandit groups, often defending the strategy as a practical response to overstretched security agencies and the humanitarian impact of prolonged violence.
Supporters of these initiatives claim they have produced short-term reductions in attacks in some locations, but opponents insist the measures encourage criminality and erode the rule of law.
According to Adeyanju, aside from policy disagreements, state governors lack 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.
He further relied on Supreme Court rulings to buttress his argument.
“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 pointed to the Federal Government’s amnesty programme for Niger Delta militants as the most relevant constitutional example.
“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,” Adeyanju stated.
While recognising that state governments have responsibilities in tackling insecurity, he warned against equating dialogue or rehabilitation with the legal authority 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 cautioned that allowing state governments to pardon terrorists could weaken Nigeria’s counter-terrorism structure, create legal inconsistencies and undermine national security efforts led by the Federal Government.
