ABUJA/KATSINA, — A fresh dispute has opened between northern leaders, legal experts and government officials over proposals to grant amnesty or pardons to armed groups blamed for years of killings and mass abductions across Northern Nigeria, amid reports that Katsina State Governor Dikko Radda is considering clemency for 70 suspected terrorists/bandits linked to violence in the state and neighbouring areas.
The controversy intensified after the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) signalled that governors could exercise constitutional mercy powers in certain circumstances. The AGF’s Special Adviser on Communications and Publicity, Kamarudeen Ogundele, told Vanguard that governors have powers to grant pardon if the offenders were prosecuted by their states.
Backing that view in principle, Lagos State Attorney-General Lawal Pedro, SAN, said the prerogative of mercy is a constitutional power available to governors, but urged restraint and policy sensitivity—arguing that pardoning terrorism-related convictions could “send the wrong signal,” even if the law does not expressly bar clemency.
However, senior lawyers interviewed by Vanguard described state-level amnesty for terrorism as legally defective, stressing that terrorism is a federal offence anchored on federal legislation and typically prosecuted at the Federal High Court. Senior Advocate of Nigeria Kunle Edun cited the Terrorism (Prevention & Prohibition) Act, 2022, arguing that states lack authority to grant reprieve to persons arrested, prosecuted or convicted under federal terrorism law, and that the Federal Government can take over such matters.
Another SAN, Dayo Akinlaja, said a governor’s clemency power is limited to offences created by state laws, a position echoed by other commentators who referenced Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as applying to state offences, not federal crimes.
Beyond the legal debate, influential northern socio-political and faith-based organisations warned that blanket or unconditional amnesty could legitimise criminality and undermine justice for victims. The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) described amnesty as “ill-defined” at current levels of insecurity, arguing it is viable only after the state has clearly prevailed.
The Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) similarly cautioned that an indiscriminate amnesty policy risks eroding confidence in the justice system and demoralising security forces, though it left room for carefully structured rehabilitation for genuinely repentant individuals.
Still, at least one pro-dialogue strand remains: some advocacy voices, including the Nomadic Rights Concern (NORIC) cited in the Vanguard report, argued amnesty should be pursued if it credibly guarantees peace and safety.
With Katsina’s proposed deal now a national flashpoint, analysts say the next phase will hinge on whether “amnesty” refers to pre-charge negotiations, state-level clemency for state offences, or reprieve for federal terrorism cases—a distinction that could determine both legality and public acceptance.
