An Abuja-based legal practitioner has said that Nigerian state governors lack the constitutional authority to grant amnesty or pardon to persons involved in terrorism, describing such actions as legally invalid and outside the powers of state executive offices.
The issue has arisen amid a national debate over whether subnational executives can use clemency powers to address armed insurgency and banditry, particularly in northern states.
Some governors reportedly have engaged in negotiations with armed groups, including arrangements described by some as amnesty agreements. This has generated differing views from federal officials, regional leaders and legal experts.
Under the Nigerian Constitution, state governors possess prerogative of mercy powers, but legal interpretation differs on the scope of those powers. The Constitution allows governors to pardon or remit penalties only for offences created under state laws.
Deji Adeyanju, head of Deji Adeyanju and Partners law firm in the Federal Capital Territory, said in a statement on Thursday that the practice of some governors granting amnesty to terrorists is unconstitutional and legally invalid.
He specifically faulted the notion that governors can unilaterally pardon individuals accused or convicted of terrorism.
Echoing this position, senior legal practitioners also described attempts by subnational executives to grant amnesty for terrorism as anomalous, noting that terrorism is governed by federal law and is prosecutable only under federal statutes.
Terrorism, including offences under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is classified as a federal crime that falls under the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Senior advocates have said that while governors may exercise prerogative of mercy under Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution for state offences, this does not extend to federal crimes such as terrorism.
The controversy follows comments by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and other federal authorities suggesting that governors might have clemency powers in some circumstances.
However, several legal experts and Northern socio-political groups countered that terrorism, and related offences fall outside state pardon powers.
Legal experts’ assertions that state governors lack power to pardon terrorists could influence ongoing negotiations and security strategies in states grappling with insurgency.
If upheld, the view may limit the ability of state governments to unilaterally engage in amnesty deals for terrorism suspects and reinforce the role of federal authorities in prosecutions and clemency decisions.
The debate also raises broader questions about the relationship between federal and state authority in security governance and the constitutional limits of subnational executive powers.
Clarification through judicial interpretation may be required if disputes escalate before courts.
Legal opinion in Abuja has reinforced that Nigerian state governors do not have the constitutional authority to grant amnesty or pardon to persons involved in terrorism, with senior legal practitioners emphasising that terrorism is a federal offence.
The issue continues to generate discussion among federal and regional actors as Nigeria confronts ongoing security challenges.
