Terrorism deserves maximum punishment under Nigerian law — Wahab Shittu

Michael Olumide Alabi

Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and lecturer in the Department of Jurisprudence and International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, Dr. Wahab Shittu, has declared that the death penalty for convicted terrorists should remain a non-negotiable component of Nigeria’s legal framework, insisting that terrorism is a crime against humanity that deserves the maximum punishment permitted by law.

Dr. Shittu made the remarks following the recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which sentenced three individuals involved in the abduction of pupils and teachers in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State to life imprisonment. The ruling has reignited public debate over whether Nigeria’s terrorism laws should prescribe stiffer penalties for convicted terrorists.

Speaking during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, on Thursday, the legal scholar explained that the life sentences imposed by the court should not be interpreted as judicial leniency but as a consequence of the legal framework currently governing terrorism trials.

According to him, judges are bound by the provisions of existing laws and cannot impose punishments beyond what the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act prescribes.

“Judges cannot act outside the statutory framework. What we can advocate is for an amendment of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act so that all those who participate in terrorist activities, those who aid and abet them, as well as those who directly carry out the acts, receive the same measure of punishment,” he stated.

He stressed that until the National Assembly amends the law, judges have no option but to apply the penalties provided under the existing legislation.

“That is an advocacy that we can sustain. But until the law is amended, judges have no option but to work with the statutory framework available for the trial of these offenders,” he added.

Describing terrorism as one of the gravest crimes imaginable, Dr. Shittu said it destroys lives, property, critical national infrastructure and the economy and therefore warrants the harshest punishment available under the law.

The senior advocate also highlighted the international dimension of terrorism, noting that two of the five recently convicted suspects were citizens of the Republic of Niger. According to him, this underscores the need for stronger regional and international collaboration in combating terrorism.

“For instance, two of the five persons recently convicted were found to be citizens of the Republic of Niger. That means that beyond prosecution, Nigeria must strengthen collaboration with neighbouring countries and international partners if we are serious about defeating terrorism. It is not a battle the judiciary can fight alone,” he said.

Dr. Shittu commended the Federal High Court judges designated to handle terrorism cases, as well as the Attorney-General of the Federation, for ensuring that terrorism suspects are prosecuted rather than remaining in prolonged detention without trial.

He described the commitment of the judiciary to handling terrorism cases as commendable, noting that dedicated judicial officers are helping to strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice.

The legal expert further argued that crime thrives where offenders face no consequences, insisting that terrorism-related offences must attract severe punishments capable of deterring future attacks.

“Crime will continue to thrive if there are no consequences for infractions. Consequences must be put in place to punish violations of our laws, particularly by terrorists, and such punishment must be adequate and sufficient to deter offenders,” he said.

While reiterating his support for the death penalty for convicted terrorists, Dr. Shittu maintained that any maximum punishment must only be imposed after a fair trial conducted in accordance with constitutional guarantees and internationally recognised human rights standards.

“If fair trial is guaranteed and human rights are respected, then convicted terrorists should receive the maximum punishment for bringing humanity to ruin through their actions,” he stated.

According to him, the gravity of terrorism justifies punishments ranging from life imprisonment to the death penalty.

“By maximum penalty, I mean sentences to death, or at worst, life imprisonment. These terrorists target lives, property, critical infrastructure and seek to cripple the nation’s economy,” he added.

Beyond prosecution, Dr. Shittu called for a comprehensive national strategy against terrorism, including stronger border security, improved intelligence gathering, enhanced forensic and digital investigation capabilities, and deeper international cooperation aimed at dismantling terrorist networks and their financiers.

He also urged the Federal Government to pay greater attention to victims of terrorism, arguing that convictions alone do not amount to complete justice.

According to him, the government should establish a Victims Trust Fund to provide compensation, restitution and rehabilitation for victims and families affected by terrorist attacks.

“Mass convictions without restitution or a reparations framework are inadequate in my view. Government should institutionalise a Victims Trust Fund from which compensation and rehabilitation can be provided for victims of terrorist activities,” he recommended.

On negotiations with terrorists, the senior advocate warned against yielding to the demands of kidnappers and insurgent groups, arguing that doing so would undermine the constitutional responsibility of the government to guarantee the security and welfare of citizens.

He concluded by reiterating that although Nigerians are justified in demanding tougher punishment for terrorism, such penalties can only be implemented after the National Assembly amends the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.

“Except we amend our laws to provide stiffer penalties, our judges cannot be blamed for applying the law as it currently stands, because judges do not make laws; they interpret and apply the laws enacted by the legislature,” he said.