By Gabriel Ameh
Human rights activist and lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, has stated that state governments in Nigeria do not possess the constitutional authority to grant amnesty to terrorists, stressing that such powers are vested solely in the President under the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Adeyanju explained that Section 212 of the Constitution clearly limits a governor’s power of pardon to offences created by state laws. Terrorism, he noted, is a federal offence governed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act and falls under matters of national security listed on the Exclusive Legislative List.
“As such, only the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, acting pursuant to Section 175 of the Constitution, can lawfully grant amnesty for terrorism-related offences,” he said.
According to Adeyanju, any governor who purports to grant amnesty to individuals accused or convicted of terrorism acts ultra vires, rendering such amnesty legally invalid and unenforceable.
He referenced the Supreme Court decision in Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Others (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222, where the apex court affirmed the doctrine of covering the field, holding that where federal legislation occupies a field of national importance, any inconsistent action by a state government must give way.
Adeyanju also cited Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320, where the Supreme Court held that when national security is threatened, individual rights must yield to the collective security and corporate existence of the nation.
“Although the Dokubo-Asari case arose in the context of bail, its broader constitutional implication is that issues of terrorism and national security lie firmly within the exclusive competence of the Federal Government and are beyond the reach of state-level political arrangements or concessions,” he added.
The activist pointed to the 2009 Presidential Amnesty Programme for Niger Delta militants under former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as the clearest constitutional precedent. He noted that the offences involved treason, felony, and economic sabotage were federal crimes, and the amnesty was therefore lawfully issued through a Presidential Proclamation under Section 175 of the Constitution.
While acknowledging that state governments may engage in dialogue, facilitate surrender, or support rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, Adeyanju warned that such actions must not be misconstrued as granting amnesty.
“State governments lack the constitutional jurisdiction to grant amnesty for terrorism. Any attempt to do so not only violates the Constitution but, in my view, risks encouraging and promoting terrorism,” he concluded.
Deji Adeyanju, Esq.
