By Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd)
Most of the contiguous States in the North West and North Central part of Nigeria are currently bedeviled by the activities of disparate and motley groups of killer bandits and kidnappers. Out of frustration due to the inability of the security forces to definitively end the activities of these bandits and kidnappers, some States are opting to negotiate with the bandits, to offer them legal immunity for the crimes they committed which include murder as well as rehabilitation if any bandit kidnapper accepts to surrender his weapons. On the other hand, some of the States are refusing to negotiate with the bandits.
As my personal contribution to both States and Federal Government, this explainer tries to examine the pros and the cons of such approaches being tried by different States as different solutions to the common problem of bandits and kidnappers particularly in the contiguous and neighboring States in the North West and North Central. I also offers some policy recommendations.
Granting amnesty to bandits and kidnappers in exchange for surrendering their weapons and renouncing violence is a highly contentious approach. It presents potential benefits and risks, which must be carefully weighed in the context of Nigeria’s North West and North Central regions. Below is an analysis of the pros and cons of such a policy:
Pros of Granting Amnesty
1. Reduction in Violence:
Encouraging bandits to disarm and surrender could lead to an immediate decrease in violent activities, saving lives and restoring peace in affected areas.
2. Breaking the Cycle of Revenge:
Negotiating and offering amnesty might help break the cycle of retaliatory violence between bandits and local communities or security forces.
3. Cost-Effectiveness:
Resolving the conflict through negotiation may be less expensive than prolonged military operations, which require significant financial, human, and logistical resources.
4. Reintegration Opportunities:
Amnesty programs often include vocational training and rehabilitation, providing former criminals with alternative livelihoods and reducing their likelihood of reoffending.
5. Intelligence Gathering:
Former bandits who surrender may provide valuable information about their networks, operational strategies, and hideouts, aiding law enforcement in targeting those who refuse to surrender.
6. Restoration of Trust:
Communities living under the constant threat of violence may regain a sense of security if the program is perceived as effective.
Cons of Granting Amnesty
1. Undermining the Rule of Law:
Granting immunity for heinous crimes such as murder and kidnapping can erode trust in the justice system, sending a message that criminal behavior can be excused if one agrees to negotiate.
2. Moral Hazard:
Amnesty might incentivize others to take up arms, expecting similar deals in the future. This can create a cycle of violence rather than ending it.
3. Victim Marginalization:
The victims of banditry and kidnapping, including those who lost loved ones, may feel betrayed and disillusioned, deepening societal divisions and grievances.
4. Selective Compliance:
Not all bandits may surrender, and those who refuse may become emboldened, believing they can operate with impunity.
5. Safe Haven Effect:
States offering amnesty could inadvertently become sanctuaries for bandits who perceive these regions as “safe zones” where they face little to no prosecution.
6. Strategic Relocation:
o Once granted immunity, bandits might relocate their operations to neighboring States where they can continue criminal activities without jeopardizing their status in the amnesty State.
7. Exploitation of Loopholes:
Weak monitoring mechanisms in amnesty programs could allow bandits to access resources meant for rehabilitation, such as financial support, which might be diverted to fund new criminal activities.
8. Borderless Criminal Networks:
Banditry/kidnapping often involves loosely organized, transboundary networks with no single leadership that can exploit discrepancies in State policies to maximize their operational advantage.
9. Weakening Security Forces’ Credibility:
Reliance on amnesty programs might be seen as a sign of the government’s inability to enforce law and order, further undermining public confidence in security agencies.
10. Short-Term Solutions:
Amnesty programs risk addressing symptoms of the problem (violence) without tackling root causes such as poverty, unemployment, lack of education, and poor governance.
11. Potential for Abuse:
There is a risk of individuals falsely claiming to be bandits to benefit from amnesty programs, diverting resources away from genuine rehabilitation efforts.
12. Selective Compliance:
Bandits may feign compliance in states offering amnesty, using the period of negotiation or rehabilitation to regroup, rearm, and reorganize.
Potential Consequences
1. Destabilization of Neighboring States:
Neighboring States that do not offer amnesty could experience increased violence as bandits exploit the lack of uniform policies to expand their operations.
2. Undermining Regional Security Efforts:
A lack of coordination between states could weaken collective security efforts, with bandits exploiting policy gaps to evade capture or retaliation.
3. Erosion of Public Trust:
Communities in both amnesty and non-amnesty states may lose confidence in their governments if bandits are perceived as benefiting from impunity or exploiting state resources.
4. Reinforced Banditry Networks:
Access to amnesty programs and rehabilitation resources without proper oversight could strengthen the logistics and capabilities of bandit groups.
5. Denial of Justice for Victims and Their Families
• Failure to Acknowledge Harm:
Amnesty policies often prioritize reconciliation over accountability, leaving victims and their families feeling that their suffering is dismissed or ignored.
• Lack of Closure:
For families of the deceased or those affected by kidnapping, justice serves as a form of closure. Granting amnesty denies them the opportunity to see perpetrators held accountable for their crimes.
• Erosion of Trust in Institutions:
Victims may lose faith in the judicial system and government, perceiving the amnesty as prioritizing the interests of perpetrators over the rights of victims.
6. Undermining the Rule of Law
• Promotion of Impunity:
Granting amnesty without accountability reinforces the idea that individuals can commit crimes, including murder and kidnapping, without facing consequences. This undermines the rule of law and emboldens potential offenders.
• Perverse Incentives:
When perpetrators are rewarded with amnesty or rehabilitation benefits, it creates a dangerous precedent, signaling that crime may lead to negotiation and rewards rather than punishment.
• Weakening Deterrence:
The absence of accountability erodes the deterrent effect of the justice system, potentially leading to more criminal activity.
7. Victim Disenfranchisement and Alienation
• Marginalization of Victims:
Amnesty policies often exclude victims and their families from the decision-making process, compounding feelings of marginalization and injustice.
• Social Polarization:
When communities perceive that criminals are forgiven without atonement, it can create resentment and deepen divisions between victims and non-victims.
8. Potential for Vigilantism and Retaliation
• Erosion of Community Trust:
When formal justice systems fail to hold perpetrators accountable, individuals and communities may resort to vigilante justice to exact retribution.
• Cycle of Violence:
Retaliatory actions by victims’ families or vigilante groups could escalate violence, undermining peace efforts and creating new grievances.
9. Undermining Moral and Ethical Principles
• Injustice to the Deceased:
Amnesty disregards the moral obligation to honor those who have been killed by ensuring their killers face justice.
6. Ethical Dilemma:
Governments and societies are faced with the challenge of balancing peacebuilding with justice, but sacrificing justice may come at the cost of societal values and ethical principles.
Mitigation Measures
To prevent amnesty states from becoming logistical bases for attacks, the following measures should be implemented:
1. Regional Collaboration:
Establish coordinated security policies across States to prevent bandits from exploiting inconsistencies in amnesty and enforcement measures.
Create inter-State task forces to share intelligence and track the movements of bandits across State borders.
2. Robust Monitoring:
Implement strict monitoring mechanisms to track individuals benefiting from amnesty programs, ensuring they remain compliant with disarmament and rehabilitation terms.
Use technology such as biometrics and surveillance to monitor activities and movements of former bandits.
3. Conditional Amnesty:
Make amnesty conditional upon a thorough vetting process, surrender of weapons, and genuine participation in rehabilitation programs.
Exclude known leaders or repeat offenders from amnesty, ensuring that only those genuinely willing to reform are included.
4. Security Reinforcement in Non-Amnesty States:
Bolster security in neighboring states to deter potential attacks and ensure that bandits cannot relocate operations with ease.
Strengthen community policing and intelligence gathering to identify and respond to emerging threats.
5. National Policy Alignment:
Develop a unified, national strategy for dealing with banditry that aligns state-level amnesty initiatives with broader security and justice frameworks.
Ensure that states with amnesty programs are accountable to national authorities for monitoring and enforcement.
6. Reintegration Oversight:
Establish community-based reintegration committees to monitor the progress and conduct of individuals participating in amnesty programs.
Balancing the Approach
To maximize the benefits and minimize the risks, the following measures could be adopted if amnesty is pursued:
1. Conditional Amnesty:
Amnesty should be conditional on full disarmament, renunciation of violence, and participation in rehabilitation programs. Legal immunity should exclude those responsible for the most egregious crimes, such as mass murder.
2. Victim-Centered Justice:
Incorporate restorative justice mechanisms to give victims a voice in the process and ensure reparations are made to affected communities.
3. Targeted Application:
Focus amnesty efforts on low-level offenders while maintaining stringent law enforcement against ringleaders and those who refuse to surrender.
4. Parallel Security Measures:
While negotiating with some groups, security forces should remain vigilant and prepared to neutralize non-compliant actors to avoid the perception of weakness.
5. Community Involvement:
Engage local leaders, traditional rulers, and civil society organizations to ensure the program has grassroots support and aligns with community needs.
Conclusion
While granting amnesty to bandits and kidnappers might offer short-term gains in reducing violence and fostering peace, it poses significant long-term risks to justice, governance, and public confidence. A balanced approach combining conditional amnesty, strong law enforcement, and socioeconomic interventions is essential to achieving sustainable peace and stability in Nigeria’s North West and North Central regions.
The possibility of bandits and kidnappers using States that offer amnesty as logistical bases to launch attacks on neighboring States without amnesty is a significant concern and must not be underestimated. This scenario arises from the inherent risks associated with offering amnesty to criminal groups, especially if it is not accompanied by comprehensive oversight and security measures. This underscores the need for a holistic, coordinated approach that includes robust monitoring, regional collaboration, and consistent security policies. Without these safeguards, amnesty programs could inadvertently exacerbate the insecurity they aim to resolve.
Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd) is a Security Sector Reform Consultant
