The Chief Judge of Katsina State, Justice Musa Abubakar, has drawn a firm legal line amid the state government’s controversial peace talks with armed groups, stating that courts have no power to free persons already convicted and can act only on applications properly brought before them in accordance with the law.
In an interview with PREMIUM TIMES, Mr Abubakar explained that suspects awaiting trial may seek bail or enforce their fundamental rights if prosecutors fail to bring them to court within a reasonable time. However, he stressed that the judiciary cannot intervene arbitrarily or operate outside established legal procedures.
The clarification comes amid public outrage following reports that the Katsina State Government is seeking the release of about 71 detainees, some convicted, others awaiting trial, as part of a non-kinetic strategy to return peace to banditry-affected communities.
Banditry in Katsina State has escalated since around 2010, evolving from cattle rustling into widespread armed violence marked by mass kidnappings, village raids, and killings.
In response, successive administrations have combined military operations with “non-kinetic” approaches, including community-led negotiations and peace deals with armed groups, an approach that has increasingly placed pressure on the criminal justice system.
Who are the 71?
Senior judicial officials told PREMIUM TIMES that the detainees at the centre of the controversy do not belong to a single legal category, but fall into distinct groups whose statuses have been widely blurred in public debate.
According to information provided by the judiciary, the list includes three broad categories: individuals already convicted by the courts; suspects currently standing trial before magistrates and high courts; and persons arrested during security operations, largely because of their familial ties to suspected bandits rather than direct participation in violent crimes.
The chief judge said a number of those in custody are relatives — including wives, parents, and other family members — of suspected bandits, many of whom were arrested during raids despite insufficient evidence linking them directly to criminal acts.
He said this lack of clarity about who exactly is being discussed under the proposed release has contributed to public confusion, outrage, and competing narratives around the peace negotiations.
This categorisation, he noted, is critical to understanding why the controversy has escalated — and why the judiciary insists that each group must be treated differently under the law.
Detention without trial and rights
Beyond the debate over release lists and peace negotiations, Mr Abubakar raised deeper concerns about prolonged detention and the erosion of constitutional safeguards within Katsina State’s security response.
The chief judge said a significant number of detainees have remained in custody for two to four years without being conclusively tried or convicted, particularly among those arrested during security operations where investigators later struggled to assemble prosecutable evidence.
According to him, such prolonged detention is rarely the result of judicial obstruction, but instead of systemic failures within investigative and prosecutorial institutions.
Mr Abubakar cited slow police investigations, delayed legal advice from prosecuting authorities, and weak coordination between security agencies and the Ministry of Justice as key factors clogging the justice system.
“In many cases, the courts are simply not given files that are ready for trial,” the chief judge said, noting that judges can only act on matters properly brought before them.
He warned that extended detention without resolution risks turning innocent individuals into long-term victims of the security response itself, undermining public confidence in the justice system and sowing grievances that may fuel future instability.
While acknowledging the gravity of banditry, the chief judge stressed that security challenges cannot justify practices that sidestep due process, cautioning that such approaches may weaken — rather than strengthen — long-term peace efforts.
Security spending and impact
The judicial concerns unfold against a backdrop of heavy public spending on security by the Katsina State Government, raising questions about outcomes, oversight, and accountability.
Former Secretary to the State Government, Mustapha Inuwa, told PREMIUM TIMES that the state had spent over ₦36 billion on security-related interventions in recent years, yet many frontline communities continue to experience attacks, kidnappings, and displacement.
While government officials have disputed claims of limited progress, the judiciary’s disclosures suggest that the security response has placed increasing pressure on detention facilities and the criminal justice system—without a corresponding improvement in case resolution or prosecution outcomes.
Judicial officials said courts are routinely confronted with detainees brought before them after long periods in custody, often without complete case files, legal advice, or prosecutorial readiness.
This, they explained, creates a paradox: vast resources are committed to security operations, yet weak investigative follow-through leaves courts unable to promptly conclude cases, resulting in prolonged detention and legal congestion.
The chief judge stressed that courts do not control arrests, investigations, or detention practices, noting that the judiciary can only act on matters properly brought before it.
“Where cases are not filed, or evidence is not presented,” Mr Abubakar said, “the courts cannot manufacture justice.”
Legal experts say this disconnect points to a broader institutional problem—one in which security enforcement, prosecution, and judicial processes operate in silos, undermining the effectiveness of even well-funded interventions.
In the absence of coordinated case management and prosecutorial efficiency, the judiciary warned that security spending risks translating into mass arrests rather than sustainable justice outcomes, with long-term implications for public trust and the rule of law.
Vigilantes, alleged abuses, and judicial oversight
Beyond the courts, the chief judge raised serious concerns about the conduct of community-based security outfits operating across Katsina State, particularly the Community Security Watch Corps, which has played an expanding role in anti-banditry operations.
According to Mr Abubakar, some members of the outfit have acted beyond their legal mandate, including carrying out arrests without handing suspects over to the police and, in some cases, engaging in unlawful killings.
He said the judiciary was aware of allegations that certain operatives function as “law unto themselves,” conducting executions based on suspicion rather than evidence.
“When such matters are brought before the courts,” he said, “they are treated as cases of acting outside lawful authority.”
The chief judge disclosed that cases involving alleged extra-judicial killings by community security operatives are before the courts, although he declined to give details on convictions, noting that the matters are still undergoing judicial processes.
He explained that the courts’ intervention is reactive rather than proactive: judges can only act when law enforcement agencies formally file cases or when victims’ families initiate legal action.
This limitation, he said, underscores the fragile accountability framework surrounding state-backed vigilante groups—whose operations often take place in remote communities with limited access to legal remedies.
While acknowledging the security pressures facing rural areas, the chief judge warned that unchecked abuses by non-conventional security actors risk deepening grievances, eroding public confidence, and potentially fueling the very violence they are meant to suppress.
“The courts exist to draw the line,” he said, “but that line can only be enforced when the law is allowed to function.”
The legal deadlock over the 71
At the heart of the controversy surrounding the proposed release of 71 detainees lies a legal impasse that the judiciary says it cannot resolve through political pressure or administrative shortcuts.
The chief judge explained that the detainees being discussed under the peace arrangement fall into distinct legal categories, each governed by different constitutional and procedural rules.
According to him, those already convicted by the courts cannot be released by judicial fiat.
“For convicted persons, the court has completed its duty,” he said. “Once judgement has been delivered, the court becomes functus officio.”
In practical terms, this means that judges lack the legal authority to revisit or reverse valid convictions, regardless of the political or security considerations surrounding the peace negotiations.
Mr Abubakar noted that the only lawful pathway for the release of convicted inmates lies outside the judiciary—through the governor’s prerogative of mercy, exercised in accordance with constitutional provisions.
For detainees currently standing trial, the situation is different but no less constrained. The chief judge said such suspects remain subject to ongoing judicial processes, with cases at various stages before magistrates and highgh courts across the state.
He stressed that political or security pressure cannot lawfully override evidentiary standards or trial procedures.
“The court cannot discharge a person simply because there is a peace arrangement,” he said. “The law must take its course.”
The most legally troubling category, Mr Abubakar said, involves individuals held without sufficient evidence, many of whom are relatives of suspected bandits rather than direct participants in crimes.
The chief judge acknowledged that a significant number of detainees awaiting trial fall into this group, describing them as people “against whom there is no proof strong enough to sustain prosecution.”
He explained that such detainees remain in custody largely because law enforcement agencies have been unable to conclude investigations or file charges supported by evidence—yet have also failed to formally release them.
Under the law, he said, these detainees retain the right to apply for bail or to enforce their fundamental rights through the courts if held for prolonged periods without trial.
However, the chief judge noted that many lack legal representation, limiting their ability to challenge continued detention.
Taken together, the three categories expose a system caught between security expediency and constitutional limits—where peace negotiations demand releases the courts are not empowered to grant, and prolonged detentions persist without timely judicial resolution.
“This is where the deadlock is,” the chief judge said.
Between justice and survival — Civil society, cmmunities, and a divided public
Beyond the courtroom, the proposed release of detainees has divided opinions among civil society groups, community leaders, and residents of conflict-hit areas—splitting opinion between those demanding strict justice and those desperate for immediate relief from violence.
The Chairman of the Coalition of Civil Society Organisations, Abdulrahman Abdullahi, told PREMIUM TIMES that while communities ravaged by banditry are “exhausted and desperate for calm,” the continued detention of innocent persons raises serious legal and moral questions.
“An innocent person is an innocent person,” he said. “Detaining relatives of suspects for years without resolution creates fresh grievances and undermines the justice system itself.”
Mr Abdullahi said civil society groups have repeatedly called for speedy trials and judicial oversight, warning that prolonged detention without clear outcomes risks turning victims into future sources of instability.
Judicial officials had earlier warned that peace arrangements built outside the law were unlikely to endure. That warning now appears to be resonating beyond the courtroom, as community leaders and security observers link the recent resurgence of attacks to what they describe as a breakdown in trust between armed groups and authorities.
However, other civic and regional groups have taken a harder line.
The Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) rejected any arrangement that could lead to the release of convicted or actively prosecuted suspects, describing such moves as “legally questionable and strategically unsound.”
Speaking with PREMIUM TIMES, CNG chairman Jamilu Charanchi warned that commitments that cannot be lawfully implemented weaken public confidence and embolden criminal networks.
“Releasing detained bandits as part of negotiations undermines justice, disrespects victims, and complicates security efforts across the North,” he said, while urging authorities to adhere strictly to due process and regional coordination.
READ ALSO: EXCLUSIVE: Nigeria Immigration Service says document Ozekhome gave British court is fake
On the ground, opinions are even more conflicted.
Some residents argue that the continued detention of relatives of bandits is justified, claiming that such individuals often benefit from criminal proceeds or act as logistical enablers—pointing, in some cases, to evidence of sudden wealth, foreign travel, or sponsorship of pilgrimages as grounds for suspicion.
Others counter that collective punishment only deepens resentment, especially when detainees include women, elderly parents, and individuals never charged with any offence.
Security analysts warn that these unresolved tensions—between justice, survival, and state authority—are already reshaping public trust.
For victims’ families, the dilemma is stark: accept legal compromises in the hope of quiet, or insist on accountability at the risk of renewed violence.
As the judiciary insists it cannot bend the law to fit peace deals, and the executive faces pressure to show results, Katsina’s fragile calm now rests on a question with no easy answer:
Can peace built on unresolved injustice truly last?
A Judiciary Draws the Line
At the centre of the controversy, the Katsina State judiciary has drawn a clear institutional boundary — one it says it cannot cross, regardless of political pressure or security urgency.
In his engagements with Premium Times, the chief judge made it clear that the courts cannot be repurposed to resolve political or security dilemmas created outside the justice system. Where convictions exist, judicial authority is exhausted. Where cases remain unresolved, responsibility lies with investigative and prosecutorial agencies to act within the law.
The judge also warned that security measures pursued outside legal limits — including prolonged detention without trial or unchecked actions by community-based security outfits — risk undermining the very stability they are meant to achieve.
Together, these positions underscore a central tension now confronting Katsina State: peace may be negotiated, but justice cannot be improvised.
As bandit attacks persist in parts of the state despite ongoing negotiations, the judiciary’s refusal to bend the law has left the executive with narrowing options — either recalibrate its security strategy within constitutional limits, or confront the reality that some promises made in the name of peace may be impossible to keep.
For now, the courts have drawn a line.
Whether political authorities can restore calm without crossing the line may determine not only the fate of the detainees at the heart of the controversy, but also the credibility of governance in a state still searching for stability after years of violence.
