Reported by Weng Patrick Atokor | Journalist at Weng Global
Nigeria’s legal community has renewed calls for tougher anti-terrorism measures, with a former Attorney General of Edo State and other senior legal practitioners advocating constitutional and legislative reforms that would require convicted terrorists to serve their full prison sentences without the possibility of executive pardon or early release.
The legal experts argued that terrorism represents one of the gravest threats to Nigeria’s national security and should be treated differently from other criminal offences. They insisted that allowing convicted terrorists to benefit from presidential or gubernatorial clemency could undermine justice, weaken public confidence in the judicial system, and embolden extremist groups.
Their position comes as Nigeria continues to battle insurgency, banditry, kidnapping, and violent extremism across several parts of the country, particularly in the North-East and North-West. Security agencies have intensified military operations against terrorist groups, while courts have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism suspects in recent years.
Call for tougher anti-terrorism laws
The former Edo State Attorney General stressed that individuals convicted of terrorism offences should not enjoy privileges that could lead to reduced prison terms through executive intervention.
According to him, terrorism differs fundamentally from conventional crimes because it targets innocent civilians, threatens national unity, destroys infrastructure, and creates widespread fear.
He argued that Nigeria’s legal framework should be amended to expressly prohibit executive clemency for persons convicted of terrorism-related offences, ensuring that sentences handed down by competent courts are fully served.
Legal scholars supporting the proposal maintained that such reforms would reinforce accountability while strengthening the country’s resolve against violent extremism.
Executive clemency debate
Under Nigeria’s Constitution, the President and state governors possess the power to grant pardons or reduce sentences in certain circumstances through the prerogative of mercy.
However, proponents of the proposed reforms believe terrorism should be exempt from these constitutional powers because of the devastating consequences of extremist violence.
They noted that countries confronting terrorism often adopt stricter sentencing policies designed to deter future attacks while assuring victims that justice will be fully enforced.
According to the legal experts, exempting terrorism convicts from executive pardon would send a strong message that Nigeria has zero tolerance for acts intended to destabilise the nation.
Justice for victims
The lawyers further argued that families who have lost loved ones to terrorist attacks deserve certainty that those responsible will face the full weight of the law.
Over the past decade, thousands of Nigerians have been killed, displaced, or injured in attacks linked to insurgent groups and other violent criminal organisations operating across various regions.
Communities affected by terrorism have repeatedly demanded stronger accountability measures alongside improved security operations.
The legal practitioners said ensuring convicted terrorists complete their sentences would honour victims while reinforcing public trust in the justice system.
National security implications
Security analysts have long maintained that effective counter-terrorism requires both military action and a credible justice system capable of prosecuting offenders efficiently.
The legal experts observed that successful convictions alone are insufficient if offenders can later benefit from sentence reductions that may appear inconsistent with the gravity of their crimes.
They urged lawmakers to review relevant provisions of Nigeria’s anti-terrorism legislation and constitutional framework to eliminate perceived loopholes.
According to them, stronger sentencing policies could also improve international confidence in Nigeria’s efforts to combat terrorism and comply with global counter-terrorism obligations.
Balancing justice and constitutional powers
While backing stricter punishment, some constitutional lawyers acknowledge that any move to remove executive clemency for terrorism offences would require careful constitutional amendment.
They emphasised that the prerogative of mercy is an important constitutional safeguard intended to address exceptional cases involving miscarriages of justice, humanitarian concerns, or compelling public interest.
Nevertheless, supporters of reform argue that terrorism presents extraordinary national security challenges that justify creating limited constitutional exceptions.
They believe lawmakers should engage stakeholders, including the judiciary, security agencies, civil society organisations, and victims’ groups, before introducing any amendments.
Nigeria’s fight against terrorism
Nigeria has continued to strengthen its legal and institutional response to terrorism through specialised investigations, prosecutions, intelligence sharing, and military operations.
Federal authorities have conducted several mass terrorism trials involving suspects accused of supporting insurgent organisations, financing terrorism, or participating in violent attacks.
The government has also collaborated with international partners to improve intelligence gathering, disrupt terrorist financing networks, and strengthen border security.
Despite these efforts, security experts say lasting success will depend on sustained military operations, effective criminal justice reforms, community engagement, and socio-economic interventions addressing the root causes of violent extremism.
Growing support for reform
The latest call by the former Edo Attorney General and other legal experts adds momentum to ongoing conversations about strengthening Nigeria’s criminal justice framework.
Supporters argue that ensuring terrorism convicts serve their complete sentences would reinforce deterrence, affirm the rule of law, and demonstrate the country’s commitment to protecting citizens from extremist violence.
Whether lawmakers move to amend the Constitution or existing anti-terrorism legislation remains to be seen, but the proposal has already sparked fresh debate over how Nigeria should balance constitutional powers with national security imperatives.
As the country continues confronting evolving security threats, the discussion underscores the broader challenge of ensuring justice, protecting victims, and maintaining public confidence in the rule of law.
Sources: Nigerian Tribune, The Guardian Nigeria, Daily Trust, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended), Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
