Follow Us on Google
Human rights activist and lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, has said state governments in Nigeria do not have the constitutional authority to grant amnesty to persons accused or convicted of terrorism-related offences.
Adeyanju said the power to grant amnesty for terrorism lies solely with the President, stressing that such offences fall within the exclusive legislative competence of the Federal Government.
In a statement on Wednesday, Adeyanju cited Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), noting that a governor’s power of pardon is limited to offences created under state laws.
“Under Section 212 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a governor’s power of pardon is limited strictly to offences created by laws of the state. Terrorism, however, is a federal offence governed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act,” he said.
According to him, terrorism falls under matters of national security on the Exclusive Legislative List, making it outside the jurisdiction of state governments.
“As such, only the President, acting under Section 175 of the Constitution, can lawfully grant amnesty for terrorism-related offences,” Adeyanju said.
He warned that any attempt by a governor to grant amnesty to terrorists would have no legal effect.
“Any governor who purports to grant amnesty to persons accused or convicted of terrorism acts ultra vires, and such an amnesty is legally ineffectual,” he stated.
Other News
Adeyanju referenced a Supreme Court decision in Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Others, saying it established that where federal legislation covers an area of national importance, conflicting state actions must give way.
He also cited the case of Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, where the apex court held that issues of national security fall within the exclusive competence of the Federal Government.
“Although that case arose in the context of bail, its broader implication is that matters touching on terrorism and national security are firmly within the exclusive competence of the Federal Government, beyond the reach of state-level political arrangements,” he said.
Adeyanju pointed to the 2009 Niger Delta Amnesty Programme under former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as the clearest constitutional precedent.
“The offences involved were all federal crimes, and the amnesty was issued through a presidential proclamation pursuant to Section 175 of the Constitution,” he said.
While acknowledging that state governments could play supportive roles, Adeyanju maintained that they lack the power to grant amnesty.
“State governments may engage in dialogue, facilitate surrender, or support rehabilitation and reintegration initiatives, but they lack the constitutional jurisdiction to grant amnesty for terrorism,” he added.
