By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D, FIMC, CMC
There is something reassuring about the law asserting itself against those accused of unleashing terror upon a nation. For years, Nigerians have watched helplessly as terrorists murdered innocent citizens, destroyed communities, abducted schoolchildren and displaced families from ancestral homes. Against this grim background, the Federal Government’s announcement that 653 persons have been convicted of terrorism related offences offers encouragement. Yet, beneath the impressive statistics lies a question deserving more than celebratory headlines: are we delivering justice, or merely recording convictions?
Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, disclosed that 1,060 suspects were brought before the Federal High Court during the eleventh phase of the special terrorism trials. As of midday on Friday, 23 October 2026, 880 cases had been heard, resulting in 653 convictions, seven acquittals and 27 discharges. The figures were provisional, with proceedings continuing towards their scheduled conclusion.
For a country where justice frequently moves with agonising slowness, this represents considerable prosecutorial activity. It would be unfair to dismiss the achievement or overlook the coordination required to bring hundreds of defendants before the courts. The judiciary, prosecuting authorities, security agencies and defence lawyers deserve recognition for their respective contributions. Effective criminal justice depends upon much more than arrests and courtroom appearances.
Nevertheless, a criminal conviction cannot be measured solely by its contribution to a national tally. Justice demands that the right people are prosecuted for the right offences, upon credible evidence, through proceedings respecting constitutional safeguards. A conviction obtained without these foundations may satisfy the public appetite for punishment while doing little to strengthen the rule of law.
This distinction assumes particular importance in terrorism prosecutions, where outrage over atrocities can obscure the differences between perpetrators, accomplices and persons acting under coercion. The man who plans the massacre of villagers cannot reasonably be equated with a frightened resident compelled at gunpoint to provide food to insurgents. Both situations may warrant investigation, but justice must examine individual circumstances, intention and responsibility.
In July, Human Rights Watch published findings from its observation of earlier phases of Nigeria’s terrorism trials. The organisation expressed concern that prosecutions appeared concentrated on relatively low level suspects, while those bearing principal responsibility for serious crimes were not receiving sufficient attention. It also questioned the evidentiary foundations of certain convictions, particularly proceedings relying predominantly on guilty pleas without substantial supporting evidence.
These concerns deserve examination, not automatic acceptance as proof of wrongdoing. The Federal Ministry of Justice has defended its approach, explaining that disrupting terrorist organisations requires prosecuting those involved in financing, recruitment, logistics and material support, not merely those carrying weapons. That argument has merit. Terrorist networks survive because people provide the resources sustaining their operations.
But prosecuting support networks does not eliminate the obligation to establish individual criminal responsibility. Nor should the efficiency of mass proceedings become an excuse for treating fair hearing as an inconvenience. The constitutional presumption of innocence is not a favour reserved for popular defendants. It belongs equally to those society regards with suspicion.
There is another uncomfortable question. Where are the masterminds?
For years, Nigerians have heard about terrorist commanders, financiers, arms suppliers and collaborators allegedly sustaining the machinery of violence. Yet the public receives comparatively little systematic information about how many senior operational leaders and major financiers have been successfully prosecuted, the offences established against them and their sentences.
This does not suggest that the 653 convictions concern only minor offenders. The available summary does not establish that. Rather, it demonstrates why detailed public reporting is necessary. Nigerians should know the categories of offences prosecuted, the evidence supporting convictions, sentencing patterns and whether proceedings have reached those most responsible for atrocities.
The distinction matters because a justice system that punishes expendable foot soldiers while failing to dismantle terrorism’s leadership and financing structures risks treating symptoms rather than confronting the disease.
Equally troubling is the position of victims. Behind every terrorism statistic stands a human story no conviction register can adequately capture. There are parents who buried children, women who lost husbands, farmers dispossessed of their livelihoods and families still searching for abducted relatives. For these Nigerians, justice must extend beyond sentencing offenders to include appropriate remedies, rehabilitation and assistance in rebuilding shattered lives.
A state that prosecutes hundreds of suspects while leaving survivors abandoned has discharged only part of its responsibility.
The Government’s emphasis on deradicalisation and reintegration also deserves consideration. Rehabilitation can contribute to a comprehensive security strategy, particularly for individuals assessed as suitable for reintegration. However, it must operate within a transparent framework distinguishing convicted offenders, acquitted defendants and persons released without conviction. An acquittal must retain its meaning. No citizen should remain indefinitely branded guilty merely because the state once suspected him.
Ultimately, terrorism cannot be defeated through military operations alone, just as prosecutions cannot succeed without credible investigations. Security agencies must improve evidence gathering, witness protection, forensic capacity and financial intelligence. Prosecutors must build cases capable of surviving judicial scrutiny. Courts must remain independent, while defence lawyers must have sufficient opportunity to challenge allegations.
The Attorney General should consider publishing a comprehensive, appropriately anonymised account of the completed trial phases, showing offence categories, outcomes, sentencing patterns, appeals and the treatment of persons discharged or acquitted. Such transparency need not compromise legitimate security interests. It would strengthen public confidence in justice.
Nigeria has suffered too much from terrorism to accept either impunity or the appearance of justice. Government deserves credit when genuine perpetrators are lawfully convicted. It equally deserves scrutiny when questions arise about evidence, proportionality and the pursuit of those directing the violence.
The real achievement will not be that 653 names have entered a conviction register. It will be that the guilty have been punished through fair proceedings, the innocent protected, the architects of terror held accountable and victims reassured that the law has not forgotten them.
Justice is not a competition in numbers. It is a solemn obligation to get both the process and the outcome right.
Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D, FIMC, CMC
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
