Nigeria Cannot Reward Violence in the Name of Amnesty

Kindly Share This

By Editorial Team

Nigeria is again debating the idea of granting soft landings to terrorists and violent bandits who claim they want to lay down their arms. The argument usually leans on what many describe as the carrot and stick method, where the government uses both force and incentives to end conflict. But before any nation can successfully apply that approach, it must first show undeniable strength. You cannot negotiate from weakness. You cannot invite criminals to surrender when they still believe they have more firepower, more confidence, and more control than the state that is asking for peace.

This is the simple truth many policymakers avoid. If security agencies do not dominate the battlefield, any conversation with armed groups becomes an act of begging, not strategy. And a government that begs violent offenders only encourages more violence.

The hard reality is that terrorists hardly repent. History in Nigeria and across the world shows this plainly. Many criminals use the word “surrender” as a way to avoid justice, escape pressure, or reposition themselves for future attacks. Some even surrender to one agency and quietly return to their camps months later. The country must stop pretending not to know this pattern.

If anyone truly wants to turn away from crime, there are clear steps that show sincerity. First, they must drop every weapon. Not hide some. Not negotiate conditions. Total and unconditional disarmament is the first sign of honesty. After that, they must submit themselves to the judicial system. Repentance does not mean walking away. It means facing the consequences of the damage they have caused.

No one should destroy villages, kill innocent people, burn homes, kidnap children and then expect to go home smiling simply because they claim to have surrendered. Surrendering may stop the violence today, but it does not wipe away the crimes of yesterday. Nigeria must reject the idea that dropping a gun is enough to erase bloodshed. It is not.

Another serious concern is the risk of recycling criminals back into society without accountability. When offenders are not prosecuted, supervised, or closely monitored, they often return to violence. We have seen cases where so-called repentant fighters joined back-end networks, supplied intelligence to criminal groups, or used government reintegration programmes as cover for fresh operations. It is irresponsible to repeat the same mistake and expect a different result.

Nigeria also owes victims justice. Families who have lost loved ones deserve to know that those responsible will face the law. Communities destroyed by bandits deserve to see that the state cares enough to punish those who brought them pain. A country cannot build peace on the foundation of selective forgiveness.

The carrot is not a bad idea when used wisely. But the stick must come first. The state must reclaim every space that criminals currently occupy. The police and military must show capacity, strength and discipline. Only then can a conversation about surrender have any credibility. Without that strength, surrender becomes nothing more than a backdoor escape for people who have inflicted suffering on ordinary Nigerians.

Nigeria’s priority must be justice, protection of citizens and restoration of order. Anything that looks like rewarding violence will only make the problem worse. A nation seeking peace must do so with wisdom, not with weakness.