Adeyanju Slams Governors Over Pardons to Terrorists Says They Lack Constitutional Authority

Spread the love

Human rights advocate and lawyer Deji Adeyanju has voiced strong opposition to the growing practice of state governments offering pardons or negotiated settlements to individuals accused of terrorism and banditry. According to him, such actions fall outside the constitutional powers granted to state governors.

His reaction follows reports that some state authorities have been exploring reconciliation strategies with armed groups as part of efforts to calm the worsening security situation in several parts of the country.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the Abuja-based legal practitioner argued that any decision to pardon individuals involved in terrorism cannot legally come from state governments. He maintained that governors lack the constitutional authority to grant such amnesty.

Adeyanju’s criticism comes at a time when insecurity remains a serious concern across different regions, particularly in parts of northern Nigeria. Communities in the North-West, North-East, and North-Central zones have continued to face challenges including bandit attacks, abductions, and terrorist violence.

Despite sustained military operations aimed at dismantling criminal networks, many areas still experience repeated attacks. This has pushed some state administrations to explore alternative approaches to conflict resolution.

Among the strategies being considered are negotiations with armed groups, rehabilitation programs, and conditional amnesty offers designed to encourage fighters to surrender their weapons and reintegrate into society.

Several states—including Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna, and Niger—have at different times discussed or implemented arrangements involving dialogue with bandit groups. Government officials in those states often describe the approach as a practical response to prolonged violence and humanitarian pressures affecting local populations.

However, Adeyanju believes such initiatives must remain within the limits of Nigeria’s legal framework. In his view, the constitution does not grant governors the authority to pardon individuals accused of terrorism-related crimes.

Explaining his position, the activist referenced Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). According to him, the section clearly states that a governor’s power to grant pardon applies only to offences created under state laws.

He pointed out that terrorism offences are not state matters but fall under federal jurisdiction. The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act regulates such crimes and places them under the control of the federal government as part of national security responsibilities.

Adeyanju stressed that terrorism is included among issues listed on the exclusive legislative list, meaning only the federal government has the authority to legislate or make final decisions on such matters.

He warned that allowing state governments to grant pardons in cases involving terrorism could create legal confusion and undermine the rule of law.

Key Legal Arguments Raised by Adeyanju

The activist outlined several reasons why he believes governors cannot legally pardon terrorists:

The constitutional pardon power granted to governors applies strictly to offences established by state laws.
Terrorism offences are governed by federal legislation rather than state statutes.
National security issues are categorized under the exclusive legislative list controlled by the federal government.
Amnesty for terrorism-related crimes therefore requires federal authority rather than state-level decisions.

These legal distinctions, according to Adeyanju, must be respected to preserve the integrity of Nigeria’s constitutional structure.

Commentary and Political Analysis

The debate over amnesty for armed groups reflects the broader struggle Nigeria faces in addressing long-standing security crises. While military operations remain central to counterterrorism efforts, some policymakers argue that dialogue and reintegration programs may help reduce violence in communities caught in prolonged conflict.

Supporters of negotiated settlements believe offering incentives can encourage fighters to abandon criminal activities and return to civilian life. They also point to the humanitarian toll of continued warfare in rural communities.

Critics, however, worry that granting pardons to armed groups could weaken deterrence and embolden criminal networks. Legal concerns—such as those raised by Adeyanju—also highlight the importance of ensuring that any security policy aligns with constitutional provisions.

Ultimately, the controversy illustrates the complex balance between pursuing peace through negotiation and maintaining strict adherence to the rule of law.