Governors lack constitutional powers to grant amnesty to terrorists – Adeyanju
Activist and human rights lawyer, Deji Adeyanju has said that state governors lack the constitutional authority to grant amnesty to persons accused or convicted of terrorism, insisting that such powers rest solely with the President under the 1999 Constitution.
Adeyanju made the position known in a statement where he cited relevant constitutional provisions and Supreme Court rulings to argue that any amnesty granted by a state governor to terrorists is illegal and has no legal effect.
He explained that Section 212 of the Constitution clearly limits a governor’s power of pardon to offences created by state laws, stressing that terrorism is not a state offence but a federal crime regulated by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
According to him, terrorism falls under matters of national security listed on the Exclusive Legislative List, meaning that only the Federal Government has authority over such offences, including the power to grant amnesty.
Adeyanju said the Constitution is explicit under Section 175 that only the President can lawfully grant amnesty for terrorism-related offences, warning that any governor who attempts to do so acts outside the law.
He noted that the Supreme Court affirmed this position in Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Others, where the court held that when federal legislation covers a matter of national importance, any inconsistent state action must give way.
“Under Section 212 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, a Governor’s power of pardon is limited strictly to offences created by laws of the State.
“Terrorism, however, is a federal offence governed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act and falls squarely within matters of national security on the Exclusive Legislative List. As such, only the President, acting under Section 175 of the Constitution, can lawfully grant amnesty for terrorism-related offences.
“Any Governor who purports to grant amnesty to persons accused or convicted of terrorism acts ultra vires, and such an amnesty is legally ineffectual.
“This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Others (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222 where the doctrine of covering the field was explored and it was held that where federal legislation occupies a field of national importance, any inconsistent state action must yield,” he said.
The activist also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, where the court ruled that issues of national security override individual rights when the corporate existence of the country is threatened.
Although that case dealt with bail, Adeyanju said its wider implication is that terrorism and national security matters are firmly within the exclusive control of the Federal Government and cannot be subjected to state-level political arrangements.
“In fact, in Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320, the Supreme Court held that where national security is threatened, individual rights must give way to the collective security and corporate existence of the country.” Adeyanju said
He further cited the 2009 Niger Delta amnesty under former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as the clearest constitutional precedent, noting that the offences involved were federal crimes and the amnesty was issued through a presidential proclamation in line with Section 175.
“The Proclamation of Amnesty for Niger Delta Militants in 2009 under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua remains the clearest constitutional precedent. The offences involved were all federal crimes (treason, felony, and economic sabotage). The amnesty was therefore issued through a Presidential Proclamation pursuant to Section 175 of the Constitution.” He said
Adeyanju, however, noted that while state governments may engage in dialogue, encourage surrender, or support rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, they lack the constitutional jurisdiction to grant amnesty for terrorism, adding that such initiatives, risk promoting terrorism rather than addressing it.
“While state governments may engage in dialogue, facilitate surrender, or support rehabilitation and reintegration initiatives for terrorists which in my view promote terrorism, they lack the constitutional jurisdiction to grant amnesty for terrorism.” Adeyanju said.
