By Kachi Okezie, Esq.
Nigeria sent itself a dangerous message the day Katsina State quietly opened the prison gates for 70 suspected bandits. Draped in the language of peace, the move landed instead like a slap on the face of justice. At a time when the country is bleeding from relentless violence, forgiving men accused of terror without trial feels less like reconciliation and more like surrender.
The contradiction is stark. President Bola Tinubu has formally designated banditry as terrorism, a declaration meant to signal resolve at home and seriousness abroad. Yet Katsina’s action cuts directly against that posture, creating a dissonance that criminals are quick to exploit. You cannot call a crime terrorism in Abuja and treat it as a negotiable inconvenience in Katsina. That confusion is not policy. It is peril.
The state government insists it acted within the law, citing provisions of its Administration of Criminal Justice Law. But laws are not talismans that magically absolve moral and constitutional responsibility. Releasing suspects accused of mass murder, kidnapping and village raids without a transparent judicial process raises a fundamental question: where does the victim fit into this peace deal? Justice delayed is painful; justice discarded is incendiary.
What message does this send to families who buried loved ones, to communities razed in midnight attacks, to children traumatized by years in captivity? What does it say to soldiers and police officers risking their lives in forests and borderlands, when those they hunt are welcomed back into society with promises and handshakes? The signal is unmistakable: violence pays, persistence is rewarded, and the state can be worn down.
Supporters of the deal point to results—over 1,000 abducted persons allegedly freed through negotiations with so-called repentant bandits. No humane society can dismiss such relief lightly. Moreso when those kidnaps were arguably the result of the government’s own failure to fulfil its Constitutional duty of securing the land and protecting its people. But desperation should never be mistaken for strategy. Deals extracted under the shadow of the gun are rarely born of remorse; they are transactions, temporary ceasefires in a longer war. History shows that today’s “repentant bandit” often returns tomorrow with better weapons and higher demands.
Security experts warn that this approach hollows out deterrence and corrodes public trust. When accountability disappears, criminality flourishes. Banditry in Nigeria did not emerge in a vacuum. It feeds on weak governance, rural poverty, environmental stress and institutional decay. But acknowledging root causes does not require absolving atrocities. Rehabilitation without truth, justice and consequences is not peacebuilding. It is appeasement.
The federal government’s oft-repeated claim of “no negotiations with terrorists” now rings hollow. If states can cut their own deals while Abuja thunders about hard lines, Nigeria begins to look incoherent, even unserious. The House of Representatives has already warned that negotiating with bandits legitimises criminal enterprise and fuels more kidnappings. Retired military officers have gone further, calling it an open display of weakness that erodes the rule of law.
Even plea bargaining, defended by the Attorney General as a pragmatic tool for managing caseloads, becomes deeply problematic when applied to mass violence. Efficiency is not a virtue when it blurs the line between justice and indulgence. Terror is not a traffic offence to be settled quietly for convenience.
The media, too, must shoulder responsibility. Sanitising language dulls urgency and distorts reality. Men (and women, if any) who terrorise villages, abduct schoolchildren and challenge the authority of the state are not “armed groups” or “unknown gunmen.” They are terrorists, and naming them honestly matters.
Nigeria stands at a crossroads. It can pursue peace anchored in law, accountability and coherent national strategy, or it can continue this patchwork of deals that trade long-term security for short-term calm. The choice should not be difficult. A state that negotiates from fear teaches its enemies patience.
One truth remains unavoidable: you cannot defeat terror by accommodating it. When the state shakes hands with the gun, it risks losing its grip on the future.
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
