Reported by Afilawos Magana Sur, Managing Editor | Journalist at Sele Media Africa.

A prominent Nigerian human rights lawyer and activist, Deji Adeyanju, has sparked renewed national debate over Nigeria’s counter-terrorism strategy, arguing that terrorists and their sympathizers should face the full weight of the law rather than receiving forgiveness or negotiated concessions from the state. In recent statements addressing the country’s escalating security crisis, Adeyanju criticized what he described as a pattern of negotiation, pardon, and appeasement toward armed groups responsible for violent attacks across several regions of Nigeria. He maintained that such approaches risk undermining justice, emboldening criminal networks, and weakening the credibility of the state. Nigeria has faced years of insurgency, banditry, and extremist violence, particularly in the North-East and North-West regions, where armed groups have carried out mass killings, kidnappings, and attacks on communities and security forces. The conflict has involved organizations such as Boko Haram and factions aligned with Islamic State West Africa Province, as well as criminal bandit networks operating across several states. Against this backdrop, successive administrations and state governments have experimented with a mix of military operations and “non-kinetic” strategies—such as dialogue, rehabilitation programs, and conditional amnesty—aimed at persuading fighters to lay down their weapons. However, Adeyanju argues that forgiveness and negotiation with violent actors could send the wrong message. According to the activist, the continued negotiation, payment, and appeasement of bandits and terrorist groups by government authorities amounts to what he describes as “indirect financing of terrorism.” He contends that violent groups responsible for mass killings and kidnappings should be arrested, prosecuted, and punished under the law rather than receiving incentives or concessions. DAILY TIMES Nigeria +1 He also warned that forgiving such actors sets a dangerous precedent that could encourage others to adopt violence as a strategy for gaining attention, resources, or political leverage. “The idea of forgiving terrorists is alien to any serious state,” Adeyanju said in a public statement, adding that such policies risk signaling that armed violence can yield rewards rather than consequences. DAILY TIMES Nigeria the debate over amnesty programs for insurgents and bandits has remained controversial in Nigeria. Some policymakers and security analysts argue that negotiations and reintegration programs can reduce violence in the short term, particularly in areas where military operations alone have struggled to fully dismantle armed networks.
Several northern states—including Zamfara State and Katsina State—have at various times experimented with dialogue initiatives or negotiated settlements with armed groups in an attempt to curb mass kidnappings and attacks on rural communities.
Supporters of these strategies say such efforts can encourage defections from extremist groups, gather intelligence, and reduce civilian casualties in the immediate term. Critics, however, argue that these initiatives often provide only temporary relief while allowing militant leaders to regroup.
Adeyanju also raised legal concerns about the authority of state governments to grant pardons or amnesty to individuals accused of terrorism. Citing the provisions of the Nigerian constitution, he argued that terrorism-related offences fall under federal jurisdiction and are governed by national laws such as the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act. Nigerian News Hub +1
Under this legal framework, he maintains that only the federal government—through constitutional mechanisms—has the authority to grant clemency in cases involving terrorism.
Security experts say the ongoing debate reflects broader tensions within Nigeria’s strategy for confronting insurgency and criminal violence. While military operations have resulted in thousands of arrests and the elimination of many fighters, attacks and kidnappings continue to affect large parts of the country. Analysts note that resolving the crisis will likely require a combination of military pressure, improved intelligence, justice sector reforms, and socio-economic interventions in conflict-affected communities. For Adeyanju, however, the central issue remains accountability. He insists that justice for victims and deterrence for perpetrators must remain at the core of Nigeria’s response to terrorism. “Criminal violence must be confronted through the rule of law,” he said, emphasizing that sustainable security can only be achieved when those responsible for atrocities are held accountable. As Nigeria continues to grapple with insurgency and banditry, the debate over whether to negotiate with armed groups—or confront them solely through enforcement and prosecution—remains one of the country’s most contentious national security questions. Sources:
Vanguard; Daily Times Nigeria; The Whistler; Nigerian Eye;
Vanguard News.

Afilawos Magana Sur

Afilawos Magana Sur is a journalist from Bogoro Local Government Area of Bauchi State, currently based in Bauchi metropolis. He is known for his commitment to accurate, ethical, and responsible journalism, with a focus on reporting issues of public relevance and community development.

www.selemedia.org