Opinion
Should FG Grant Amnesty To Boko Haram Members?
For sometimes now, there has been a divergent views over the call by the northern leaders to grant amnesty to Boko Haram insurgents. While some people considered it as the best option to restore peace and order in the country, many others regarded it as a dangerous omen. In the midst of this confusion, the Federal Government, last week appeared to have succumbed to the pressure of the Northern leaders by showing its readiness to grant amnesty to this sect of terrorists. Our correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna sought the opinions of Nigerians on the issue. Excerpts.
Mr. Kogbara Princewill Lebua – Business Man
I don’t think it is necessary. What is the basis? There is no basis for that. If you want to look at it from the angle of the Niger Delta militants, there was a cause for their militancy. It was because the Niger Delta people felt marginalised, after all the wealth the government had taken from the Niger Delta region, there is no development. There is nothing to show for it. So, the Niger Delta militants tried in their own way for their voice to be heard.
What are Boko Haram members fighting for. What is the cause of their actions? And you hardly see the Niger Delta militants killing innocent people or burning churches. But Boko Haram is known for that.
So in my own opinion, for the Federal Government to even create a room for discussion with Boko Haram members, Let alone grant them amnesty is not necessary.
I expected the government to approach the issue from the angle of being government that should be able to tell the people look this is wrong, this is right. You can’t do this. If you don’t have this, you can’t get this. Giving Amnesty to Boko Haram members may prompt another group to form another kind of thing, just to make money from government.
But the case of the Niger Delta militants is clear. You will see by yourself that the Niger Delta people are suffering. We are not getting the benefit of our resources. Things are not going on well. If you get to the Niger Delta environment now, the fishermen are no longer fishing, farmers are no longer farming. So the Niger Delta militants were just a group of people that put themselves together as a way of expressing their feelings for the whole world to understand what they were passing through. So what is Boko Haram agitating for? What is their problem? What is that thing that government has not done for them? Look at what happened in the National Assembly, recently, when it was disclosed that the northerners have over 83 per cent oil blocs in this country. So, you will now see reason with the Niger Delta militants.
So, let’s call a spade a spade. Let the leaders of the north call themselves together and discuss with their boys and their people. They should do that first. But I will not encourage government to declare amnesty for Boko Haram members unless they open up and tell the public what they are agitating for, I have not been able to identify what prompted them to kill innocent people, burn churches, up to the extent that they killed health officers. It is un-called for.
Mr Kurotamunonye George – A Tutor
Well, I think it’s right for amnesty to be granted them. They’ve done that for the Niger Delta militants, so they can as well do that for Boko Haram members since they are fighting for their own right. That will balance the equation. Government should find out what is their problem. They cannot just come out to start bombing and start doing all sought of things without having a purpose. They have a reason for doing that, so government should know their reasons and grant them amnesty. That is, if what they are fighting for is anything that has to do with resource control or true federalism. But they can’t fight for their own selfish interest and expect the government to give them amnesty. Amnesty should be given to them if they are fighting for true federalism, their own fundamental rights, not for their own selfish interest or for religion.
But I strongly believe that government knows the best way to handle Boko Haram issue. Government has all it takes. Government knows the people behind this, they know how to go about it. The security agencies are there to curb this menace. But if they say that they want to grant them amnesty for the purpose of true federalism, it’s ok, irrespective of how many people they’ve killed, what they’ve destroyed and all that.
Mr. Ikechukwu Ojukwu – Student
I am not in support of the view that Federal Government should give amnesty to Boko Haram members considering their actions in the country, lives that have been terminated, and properties that have been lost and wasted. People engaged in these acts are against the progress and unity of a corporate entity called Nigeria.
You cannot compare them to the Niger Delta militants. The aim of the Niger Delta militants was quite different from that of Boko Haram. Boko Haram is a terrorist group and they shouldn’t give them anything like amnesty. You know this issue of amnesty for Boko Haram came as a result of the Mali crisis. Prior to this time, there was no cry for amnesty. Since they scattered their camps in Mali, they are now coming back home to demand for amnesty.
So, I think the Federal Government should come to terms with Boko Haram, not granting them amnesty. By this, I mean the government should dialogue with them, let them give up their arms and come out. Right now, we don’t know them in person. They are still faceless and I wonder how we can be talking of granting amnesty to a faceless people. Let us know who they are, what their problem is and know how to handle them.
Mr. Iheanyi Ezinwo – Publisher
First of all, I want to commend the northern leaders for making that call. I say this not because I support amnesty for Boko Haram people but the fact that they are thinking of a way out of the quagmire, as it were. What they suggested is just one of the ways out of the problem.
Having said that, I want to say that amnesty has some precedents that can make it possible. First, the people must be identifiable. In the days of the Niger Delta militancy, Asari was known, people could call their leaders and talk with them. But now, we don’t even know the characters behind the Boko Haram. Before you talk of amnesty, amnesty has to do with somebody say, ok, I want to lay down my arms on the condition that the Federal Government will forgive me for all I have done. Now, what are the issues? We don’t know. Already, they have told the world that certain conditions must be fulfilled for them to seize fire and those conditions are not acceptable. Now, if Federal Government is to grant them amnesty, on what condition will she do that?
So, there are certain grey areas that need to be cleared before we can talk about granting them amnesty. As far as I am concerned, I don’t think it is a big deal for President Jonathan to grant them amnesty but certain things have to be cleared to be sure that if the amnesty is granted then, we can have peace in this country. So, things have to be clarified and agreement reached between Boko Haram members and the Federal Government before we can talk about amnesty.
But for now, things are not clear. We are in a world where peace is gradually becoming history. All over the world, there is no peace because of the activities of terrorists and when you are dealing with terrorists, I don’t think that the solution is to go and make peace. Terrorism is an advance form of violence that experts, the soldiers, the security officers are in a better position to know how to deal with.
What is going on in Borno State and some parts of the north is different from what happened in the Niger Delta. Ours was a very clear case of marginalisation and when the Federal Government promised to address, our boys laid down their arms and the amnesty is on course. I don’t think that amnesty is the solution to the problem in the North.
Mr. Nengisa Egerton – Banker
For me, I don’t buy the idea of granting them amnesty. The actions of Niger Delta militants affected the production of crude oil, so to some extent, the amnesty was a way of calming them down which worked out. At least, it led to an improvement on production capacity.
So for me, I will even advise that they should even stop the amnesty. At least, they have achieved their aim for now because there are better ways of addressing issues not necessarily amnesty. Are they encouraging every other youth to take up arm before they will know that they are in need of some things?
So, I don’t support amnesty for Boko Haram. I don’t see any need for that. If they end up granting them amnesty, tomorrow, another set of violent group may come up in any other part of the country and still demand for amnesty.
So, I think to solve this problem, and bring about lasting peace in this country, government should come up with poverty alleviation and other measures that will alleviate the sufferings of the general masses.
Mrs Glory Ezenjoku – Public Servant.
Granting amnesty to Boko Haram will not be good enough because it will be a way of encouraging militancy in Nigeria.
However, for peace to reign in the country, they should go ahead and grant them amnesty because Boko Haram people have taken lot of lives and if granting them amnesty will make them stop this wicked act and bring peace to the country, they should go ahead and do that. From all indications, it’s like this Boko Haram sect is above the rule of law. It seems the Federal Government cannot get them controlled. Now, they are asking the Federal Government to grant them amnesty. That is to say that they are above the rule of law. I think it’s not good enough. Everybody is subject to the rule of law. They are citizens of this country. I don’t really buy that idea, but for peace to reign in Nigeria, they should grant them amnesty.
Opinion
Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Unfinished Struggle (I)
On November 10, 1995, the Nigerian military government of General Sani Abacha executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders after a deeply controversial trial. Their deaths marked one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s history. At a time when fear silenced citizens and sycophancy flourished around military power, Saro-Wiwa chose to confront tyranny. Many Nigerians retreated into silence, while others praised the regime to secure favour. He knew the risks, yet refused to abandon a people whose land had been devastated by oil exploration and whose lives remained trapped in poverty. His courage arose from the conviction that public responsibility sometimes demands resistance to authority. Saro-Wiwa understood that speaking against a military government could lead to imprisonment or death.
Nonetheless, he believed the suffering of the Ogoni people demanded a courageous response. While oil was extracted from their land, they were left with polluted rivers, damaged farmland, declining livelihoods and an environment hostile to human survival. Fishing grounds and sources of livelihood were threatened, while the people struggled to secure basic amenities. The wealth beneath their soil brought neither adequate development nor a fair share of national resources. For him, silence in the face of injustice would have amounted to complicity. Through the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), he organised a peaceful campaign that took the Ogoni question to the international community. MOSOP gave ordinary people an organised platform through which to express their grievances and insist on recognition.
The Ogoni Bill of Rights, presented to the Federal Government in 1990, demanded political autonomy, economic justice, environmental protection and control over the people’s resources. The campaign exposed the human and ecological costs of oil operations, particularly those associated with Shell, and challenged the apparent alliance between corporate interests and an unresponsive State. The Ogoni struggle became a defining expression of minority rights and environmental justice in Nigeria and Africa. Saro-Wiwa’s writings and mobilisation drew attention to communities treated as expendable because of their limited population and political influence. He argued that numerical strength should never determine a people’s value or rights.
A minority community does not become less deserving of justice because it cannot command electoral numbers or political power. In Nigeria, every ethnic group deserves dignity, protection and a fair opportunity to benefit from the commonwealth. Rather than respond to peaceful agitation with dialogue, the Abacha regime resorted to repression. Ogoni leaders were harassed, detained and killed; others fled into exile. The crisis intensified after four Ogoni chiefs were killed in May 1994. Saro-Wiwa and other MOSOP leaders were arrested, tried by a special tribunal and executed despite international appeals for clemency and serious concerns about the trial’s fairness. The executions drew worldwide condemnation and intensified scrutiny of Nigeria’s human-rights record and oil companies in the Niger Delta.
They demonstrated the danger of using State institutions to suppress peaceful demands. The proceedings remain a reminder of the need for judicial independence and due process. Saro-Wiwa’s courage rested on the conviction that justice must be pursued despite the cost. His method combined non-violent resistance, public education and grassroots organisation. His struggle recalled the civil-rights campaign of Martin Luther King Jr. and the power of peaceful mobilisation against injustice. Saro-Wiwa linked environmental degradation to political exclusion, economic exploitation and the denial of democratic rights. Oil-producing communities, he insisted, should not remain zones from which wealth is removed to develop other parts of the country.
Their people must benefit through roads, schools, healthcare, jobs and clean water. Resource extraction carries a duty to protect host communities. His argument extended to the structure of the Nigerian federation. He challenged a revenue-allocation system that made oil-producing communities bear the environmental and social costs of extraction without commensurate benefits. Like advocates of fiscal federalism, he believed resources should be managed and shared equitably. He envisaged a society in which no community would be disadvantaged by its size, ethnicity, political affiliation, culture or religion. His vision was a country bound together by justice and equal citizenship. Saro-Wiwa was also a gifted writer, dramatist and public intellectual.
Through books, essays, plays and television, he documented Nigerian society’s contradictions and challenged abuses of power. His popular television series, Basi and Company, demonstrated his creative range, while his leadership of the Association of Nigerian Authors encouraged writers to engage national questions. He believed literature should not be detached from society’s struggles. His pen exposed environmental injustice, political repression and the dangers of silencing courageous voices. He used storytelling, satire and drama to shape public consciousness and expose social contradictions. His literary achievements gave his activism wider reach and made the Ogoni experience part of national conversation. His commitment to the Ogoni people extended beyond the oil question.
During the Civil War, he worked to protect his vulnerable community. He urged younger generations to reject subservience and complacency and pursue change through lawful, peaceful means. Citizens, he believed, must not surrender their responsibility to challenge wrong doing. An injury to one community threatens the rights and security of all. The return to democratic government in 1999 and the establishment of the Niger Delta Development Commission, the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs and the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) are among developments that have kept the region’s demands in public view. Saro-Wiwa did not create these institutions, but his movement helped expose the urgency of intervention and sustain pressure for redress.
His death made it harder to ignore the Niger Delta’s environmental and political grievances. Yet, interventionist institutions do not prove that the original demands have been met. Their effectiveness depends on competent leadership, transparent spending, measurable outcomes and community participation. Yet, thirty-one years after his execution, the central concerns of the Ogoni struggle remain unresolved. The HYPREP-led clean-up has offered hope, but many residents await meaningful improvements. Questions persist about the programme’s pace, quality and transparency, and whether its benefits reach ordinary people. A clean-up should be judged not by ceremonies or contracts, but by restored land and waterways, safe drinking water, improved livelihoods and better public health.
It must include long-term monitoring to ensure treated sites remain safe. Residents deserve information about contamination, remediation methods and completion timelines. Reports that water projects in Gwara and Ebubu Communities, in Khana and Eleme Local Government Areas respectively, failed weeks after commissioning have raised further concerns. If confirmed, the failures would indicate weaknesses in supervision, procurement and quality control.
To be continued in our next edition.
Taneh Beemene
Opinion
Reforming NYSC For Practical National Service
The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) was established in 1973, after the Nigerian Civil War, to promote national unity, reconciliation and integration. By deploying graduates beyond their States of origin, its founders hoped to encourage understanding among Nigeria’s diverse peoples and help rebuild a divided country. However, the difficulties confronting corps members and their families now demand a comprehensive review. For many graduates, national service has become a period of uncertainty, financial pressure and exposure to risks. Parents who have spent years financing their children’s education must still find money for transportation, camp necessities, accommodation, feeding and other expenses. The monthly allowance may provide some relief, but often cannot meet the cost of living, especially where the place of primary assignment offers no accommodation or support.
Security is another serious concern. Corps members may be posted to communities affected by kidnapping, communal violence, insurgency or other threats. Government cannot eliminate every danger, but it must assess locations, provide reliable security information and avoid deployments where safety cannot reasonably be assured. National service should promote patriotism, not expose graduates to preventable harm. There is also the problem of securing meaningful places of primary assignment. A graduate trained in engineering may perform duties unrelated to engineering; a journalist may spend the year in an office with no opportunity to practise journalism. Graduates in agriculture, health, education and other specialised fields may likewise be assigned routine tasks that contribute little or nothing to their professional growth. Some depend on personal contacts or incur expenses to obtain suitable placements.
A year is significant for a young graduate entering a competitive labour market. National service should not be merely a compulsory waiting period before the search for employment begins. It should help bridge the gap between academic learning and practical work. The time has therefore come to review the structure of NYSC, not necessarily abolish it. I propose that the one-year programme should become vocational and professionally oriented. Graduates should, as far as practicable, be posted to institutions where they can gain supervised experience in their fields of study. Teachers should serve in schools; health graduates in suitable health facilities; engineers in technical organisations and public works departments; agricultural graduates in farms and extension services; and communication graduates in media and public information establishments.
NYSC should partner with ministries, state and local governments, private companies, professional bodies, universities, hospitals, schools and credible organisations to identify genuine training opportunities. Each member should have defined duties, a supervisor and clear learning objectives. At the end of the year, each should receive a record of duties performed and competencies acquired. The reform must also address remuneration and welfare. Corps members should receive fair pay that reflects the demands of their placements, while host organisations should provide reasonable support where possible. Government must establish transparent funding arrangements so that the new system does not become another burden imposed on employers or parents. Transport or accommodation assistance should be considered for difficult postings.
Graduates seeking jobs after service would have more than a discharge certificate: they would possess practical experience, workplace discipline and demonstrable skills. Employers would gain access to young people who have received supervised preparation. However, professional relevance should not erase the scheme’s founding objective of national integration. Inter-State deployment can remain, provided it is balanced with security, suitable placements and the availability of basic facilities. Where a safe and meaningful placement cannot be guaranteed outside a graduate’s State, an alternative should be considered. Orientation and community development activities can continue to promote cultural exchange, citizenship and service.
The Federal Government and NYSC management should convene consultations involving corps members, parents, universities, employers, security agencies and State Governments. Decisions should be based on evidence and the experiences of serving and former corps members. NYSC was created to help rebuild a nation divided by war. Its ideals remain important, but institutions must adapt to changing realities. Success should not be measured only by the number of graduates mobilised or certificates issued. It should also be measured by the skills acquired, the contribution made and whether young Nigerians complete their service safely and with dignity. It can better preserve the scheme’s founding ideals while meeting today’s economic and professional needs. A vocationally driven; adequately remunerated NYSC would turn national service from a costly obligation into a bridge between education, employment and national development. The purpose should not simply be to occupy graduates for twelve months, but to prepare them to work, serve and contribute meaningfully to Nigeria’s future.
Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Opinion
Protecting Nigeria’s Democratic Space
Quote: “Democracy is not
As the 2027 general elections
Organisers said they had
Police intervention
In Kaduna, the ADC accused
These claims require prompt
These rights apply equally to
No ambition, party or
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
-
News1 day ago
RSG Reaffirms Commitment To STEM Education, Technological Advancement
-
Business2 days ago
‘NUJ, NPA’s Partnership Would Boost Port Producrivity, Economic Growth’
-
News1 day agoIGP Warns Police Officers Against Partisanship …Directs Regular Engagement With Journalists
-
Business2 days ago
Fire Threat Interrupts Asaba Air Peace Flight
-
News1 day agoCustoms To Deploy AI, Scanners Against Snuggling
-
Business2 days ago
Fish Production Deficit, A Major Investment Opportunity – Minister
-
Business2 days ago
NCDMB, NLNG Unveil $9m For Professorial Endowment Research Chairs In Six Varsities
-
Politics1 day ago2027: INEC Begins Deployment Of Non-Sensitive Materials
