Reported By Mary Udezue | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Abuja, Nigeria — Prominent human rights lawyer Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor has issued a blistering rebuke of the Katsina State Government over its controversial move to facilitate the release of suspected terrorists and convicted bandits under the guise of peace negotiations, warning that the policy risks entrenching insecurity nationwide and undermining the rule of law. The condemnation adds to widening public debate about how best to tackle armed groups responsible for widespread violence, kidnappings and banditry across northern Nigeria.
In a statement released this week titled “When Terrorists Are Negotiated With and the Innocent Are Imprisoned — Katsina State Government and the Tragic Inversion of Justice, Morality, and Sovereignty,” Ejiofor described plans to release about 70 suspected and convicted bandits as part of a so-called “peace deal” as deeply troubling, dangerous and potentially destabilising. According to accounts circulating in Nigerian media and public forums, Ejiofor said the development should “send cold shivers down the spine of every conscientious Nigerian.”
The controversy stems from a leaked government document dated January 2, 2026, from the Katsina State Ministry of Justice requesting judicial intervention to facilitate the release of detainees facing prosecution for alleged banditry and terrorism-related offences. The state government has defended the initiative as part of a broader strategy to sustain community-level peace agreements with armed groups operating in frontline local government areas, portraying the releases as part of conditional accords designed to end violence and secure the freedom of abducted citizens.
However, critics — including lawyers, civil society actors and community advocates — have rejected this justification, arguing that releasing individuals accused of serious crimes without transparent legal processes undermines justice and public safety. Ejiofor, who is widely recognised for his legal advocacy and contributions to high-profile cases in Nigeria, echoed these concerns, framing the move as an inversion of justice that could embolden criminal networks and erode public confidence in the state’s ability to enforce the law.
“What we are witnessing is not peace-building,” Ejiofor said. “It is a perilous policy direction that jeopardises citizens’ security, negates the sacrifices of victims, and signals to violent actors that brutality may yield concessions rather than consequences.” While not directly quoted in mainstream press outlets, forum-based reporting on the statement reflects his strong denunciation of negotiations that, in his view, equate armed bandits and terrorists with legitimate negotiating partners — a characterization he insists is neither lawful nor prudent.
Ejiofor’s criticism highlights a broader debate in Nigeria about how to resolve protracted insecurity in the country’s northwest and other conflict-affected regions. While some stakeholders advocate for dialogue and reintegration frameworks aimed at encouraging militants to lay down arms, others contend that such approaches risk rewarding violence and jeopardising the rule of law — especially when implemented without clear accountability mechanisms or judicial oversight.
The Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG), a prominent regional advocacy organisation, has also condemned the proposed release, describing it as a dangerous precedent that undercuts justice and fails to address the root causes of insecurity. The coalition emphasised that peace negotiations should follow after the state demonstrates the capacity to decisively counter violent groups, rather than offering concessions as a first step.
Security analysts note that Katsina State, like many others in the northwest, has endured persistent attacks by bandits and armed groups over the past several years, with communities facing kidnappings, killings, livestock rustling and other forms of violent crime. The Nigerian government has, in response, categorised many of these groups as terrorists under national law, authorising military and policing operations to dismantle their capabilities.
Supporters of negotiation-based strategies argue that sustained violence can sometimes only be addressed through a combination of security operations and negotiated disengagement by combatants. They contend that such agreements must be accompanied by robust monitoring, disarmament, rehabilitation and reintegration frameworks to ensure long-term stability. However, detractors warn that without accountability and civic participation, these deals may simply provide reprieve and strategic advantage to armed militants, allowing them to regroup and resume attacks.
Ejiofor’s intervention underscores the tensions inherent in contemporary security policy in Nigeria, where the pursuit of peace must constantly be weighed against the imperatives of justice, transparency and the protection of vulnerable communities. His comments are likely to fuel further public discourse about the appropriate balance between negotiation and enforcement in the national fight against terrorism and criminal violence.
As the debate intensifies, legal professionals, victims’ groups and policymakers will be watching closely to see how Katsina State and federal authorities respond to these criticisms, and whether adjustments in strategy are forthcoming to address concerns about institutionalised insecurity and the broader trajectory of peace and justice in the region.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments