Katsina gov offers reintegration deal to repentant bandits

Katsina State Governor, Dikko Radda, has initiated a reintegration deal for repentant bandits, urging them to embrace peace. This move, while seemingly pragmatic in addressing pervasive insecurity, raises significant legal questions regarding the constitutional limits of a state governor's powers, particularly concerning offences now classified as terrorism under federal law. The article examines the legal framework for such state-level amnesty initiatives in Nigeria, contrasting it with federal precedents like the Niger Delta Amnesty Programme and Operation Safe Corridor. It highlights potential conflicts with federal jurisdiction over terrorism, the implications for victims' rights, and the broader challenges to the rule of law posed by such arrangements without a clear legislative backing.

Katsina State, like many parts of Nigeria's North-West, has been grappling with a severe crisis of banditry, characterised by kidnappings, cattle rustling, and widespread violence. In a recent development, Governor Dikko Radda of Katsina State announced an offer of a reintegration deal to repentant bandits, extending an olive branch in exchange for peace and their return to communities. This initiative underscores a persistent challenge in Nigeria's security landscape: the adoption of non-kinetic approaches, including amnesty and reintegration, to quell armed conflicts when conventional military solutions prove insufficient.

While such overtures are often driven by a desire to restore peace and stability, they invariably intersect with complex legal and constitutional considerations. The classification of banditry as terrorism by the Federal Government of Nigeria in late 2021 and early 2022 significantly alters the legal landscape for dealing with these criminal elements. This article delves into the legal implications of Governor Radda's reintegration offer, scrutinising the constitutional authority of a state governor to grant such a deal for offences falling under federal jurisdiction, the potential impact on victims' rights, and the broader challenges to Nigeria's criminal justice system.

The legal framework for granting amnesty or pardon in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Section 175 of the Constitution empowers the President to grant pardon, respite, or remission of punishment for any offence created by an Act of the National Assembly. Correspondingly, Section 212 grants state governors similar powers, but strictly limited to offences created by laws of the State.

Historically, Nigeria has implemented federal amnesty programmes, most notably the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP) for Niger Delta militants, launched in 2009. This programme, while a 'child of necessity' without an initial specific legislative framework, was a federal initiative aimed at disarmament, demobilisation, rehabilitation, and reintegration (DDR) of ex-militants involved in federal crimes such as treason and economic sabotage. Another significant federal initiative is Operation Safe Corridor (OPSC), established in 2016 for repentant Boko Haram insurgents, which also follows a Disengagement, Deradicalisation, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration (DDRR) model. These federal programmes, while facing their own challenges, operated under the broader constitutional powers of the President. The critical distinction for the Katsina State initiative lies in the federal classification of banditry.

The core legal challenge to Governor Radda's reintegration deal stems from the Federal Government's designation of bandit groups as 'terrorists' in November 2021, which was gazetted in January 2022. This classification means that offences committed by bandits, such as kidnapping, armed robbery, and mass killings, now fall under the purview of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, a federal legislation. Legal experts have consistently argued that under Section 212 of the Constitution, a state governor's power of pardon is limited to offences created by state laws. Consequently, a state governor lacks the constitutional authority to grant amnesty or pardon for federal offences, including terrorism-related crimes.

This jurisdictional conflict creates a legal lacuna for state-led amnesty programmes targeting 'bandits' now deemed 'terrorists'. Any purported amnesty by a state governor for such federal offences would be considered ultra vires and legally ineffectual. The Supreme Court, in cases like *Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Others (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222*, has affirmed the doctrine of 'covering the field,' where federal legislation on a matter of national importance takes precedence over inconsistent state action. The implication is that while a state can enact laws to address local security concerns, as Katsina State has done with measures like restricting motorcycle use and fuel sales, the power to pardon or grant amnesty for terrorism remains exclusively with the President.

Furthermore, such reintegration deals raise significant concerns regarding victims' rights. Nigerian law, particularly the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) and the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 (VAPP Act), provides for victim compensation and restitution. However, the effectiveness of these provisions in the context of broad amnesty programmes, especially when perpetrators are not formally prosecuted, is often limited. The focus on restorative justice and victim integration into the criminal justice system, as advocated by recent legal reforms, may be undermined if perpetrators are granted blanket amnesty without addressing the harm caused to victims and their communities. The lack of a robust legal framework for state-level reintegration of individuals involved in federal crimes also poses challenges for accountability and long-term peacebuilding, as seen with some criticisms of federal programmes like Operation Safe Corridor regarding public perception and trust.

Governor Radda's offer of a reintegration deal to repentant bandits in Katsina State, while a well-intentioned effort to de-escalate violence, navigates a complex and potentially perilous legal terrain. For legal practitioners, advising state governments on such initiatives requires a careful consideration of the constitutional division of powers, particularly the exclusive federal jurisdiction over terrorism offences. The designation of bandits as terrorists means that any state-level amnesty for these groups, without presidential involvement or a specific federal legislative framework, is likely to be constitutionally infirm and legally unenforceable.

Moving forward, a more sustainable and legally sound approach would necessitate greater collaboration between state and federal authorities, potentially leading to a federally sanctioned framework for reintegration programmes that can accommodate state-specific security challenges. This would ensure adherence to the rule of law, uphold victims' rights to justice and restitution, and prevent the creation of legal precedents that could inadvertently embolden criminal elements or undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. Practitioners should closely monitor legislative developments and judicial pronouncements on the scope of state powers in national security matters, as these will shape the future of non-kinetic approaches to conflict resolution in Nigeria.