IT is shocking that, despite the unspeakable atrocities committed by terrorists and bandits across Nigeria, some political leaders and opinion moulders still advocate negotiation, amnesty and reconciliation with mass murderers. This is wrong, dangerous and morally indefensible.
The presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress in the 2027 election, Peter Obi, reportedly said recently that if elected President, he would negotiate with bandits who genuinely wished to surrender and embrace peace. He added that hardened insurgents who refused peace would face decisive military action.
While Obi’s distinction between repentant and unrepentant terrorists may appear pragmatic, it raises a troubling question: at what point do people who have slaughtered villagers, kidnapped schoolchildren, raped women and destroyed entire communities become deserving of negotiation?
Obi has consistently argued that terrorism and banditry are products of decades of leadership failure, poverty, unemployment, poor education, social dislocation and the erosion of governance and values. There is considerable truth in this analysis.
However, poverty does not compel people to kidnap children, burn villages, massacre farmers or abduct worshippers. Millions of poor Nigerians endure hardship without resorting to murder and terrorism. Social failure may explain criminality, but it cannot excuse it.
Ironically, Obi himself demonstrated a different approach as governor of Anambra State. During his tenure, kidnappers and criminal gangs faced sustained pressure from security agencies. The state became increasingly hostile to them, forcing many to flee. He understood then that criminals retreat when confronted with force, not persuasion.
Granted, negotiation and amnesty have been employed as counterinsurgency tools in some countries. But Nigeria’s experience has largely been characterised by deception, lack of transparency and repeated betrayal.
In Katsina State, the government offered amnesty to some so-called repentant bandits in 2025 in exchange for ending attacks on communities. Yet despite the agreement, the criminals returned to violence.
In January 2026, attacks were reported in Dandume, Faskari, Funtua, Jibia and Kankara, where many citizens were killed, abducted and injured. The peace agreements proved worthless.
Understandably, the Katsina State Government’s plan earlier this year to release 70 bandits facing criminal trials under a questionable peace arrangement provoked nationwide outrage. The proposal sought to consolidate agreements involving communities in about 15 local government areas ravaged by insecurity.
But what message does such an arrangement send? That the state rewards violence. That those who terrorise society can bargain their way to freedom. That victims count for less than their tormentors.
The victims of terrorism suffer psychological, emotional and economic devastation. Many lose relatives, livelihoods and homes. Entire communities are displaced.
Yet these victims are often abandoned while enormous attention and resources are devoted to rehabilitating their attackers.
Any peace arrangement that ignores justice for victims is built on sand.
If negotiations must ever occur, they should only come from a position of overwhelming strength. Terrorists must first be subdued, degraded and rendered incapable of imposing their will. Negotiation without victory is surrender.
Perhaps Obi sought to accommodate those who believe that some low-risk fighters were coerced into joining armed groups. It is also possible that, in the heat of politics, his remarks were influenced by the search for northern political support.
Some northern leaders have repeatedly advocated dialogue with bandits, comparing it with the amnesty granted to Niger Delta militants in 2009. The comparison is false.
The Niger Delta militants were agitators demanding resource control and political concessions. The bandits and terrorists terrorising northern Nigeria are organised criminal gangs engaged in murder, kidnapping, extortion and mass violence. Their activities contain no legitimate political grievance.
They are criminals, pure and simple.
Indeed, terrorism, armed robbery and treason rank among the gravest offences known to the law. Armed robbery and treason attract the death penalty in Nigeria because they threaten both lives and the state itself. Terrorism combines both crimes: it attacks innocent citizens while simultaneously challenging the authority and sovereignty of the state.
If armed robbers and traitors can face death under the law, why should terrorists who massacre entire communities be rewarded with rehabilitation packages, financial support and reintegration programmes?
Moreover, experience has shown that some supposedly repentant terrorists return to the forests after rehabilitation, providing intelligence and operational support to their former groups.
There have also been persistent allegations that some ex-terrorists reintegrated during the administration of the late President Muhammadu Buhari later became moles and collaborators.
Terrorists do not deserve mercy. They do not deserve compensation. They do not deserve amnesty. They deserve justice.
What Nigeria requires is the total defeat and annihilation of terrorist networks. This demands stronger intelligence gathering, improved surveillance capabilities, sophisticated weapons systems, modern technology and better coordination among security agencies. Equally important are improved welfare, training and motivation for military personnel risking their lives to defend the country.
Negotiation has repeatedly failed because it confers legitimacy on criminals and projects weakness on the part of the state. No collection of outlaws should ever become more powerful than the government.
The duty of the state is not to bargain with those who murder its citizens. It is to protect the innocent, punish the guilty and uphold justice.
There can be no lasting peace without justice, and there can be no justice where terrorists are treated with compassion while their victims are forgotten. The path to security is not appeasement but decisive victory.
Read the full article here
