A legal practitioner and human rights activist, Mr Deji Adeyanju, has said state governors do not have the constitutional authority to grant amnesty or pardon to persons accused or convicted of terrorism offences, warning that such actions are legally ineffective.

Adeyanju made the remarks in a statement issued on Thursday, January 29, 2026.

The comments by Adeyanju, who heads the law firm Deji Adeyanju and Partners in the Federal Capital Territory, come amid ongoing debates over non-kinetic approaches by some state governments to address persistent insecurity, including banditry and mass kidnappings across the North-West, North-East and North-Central regions.

Some states have negotiated with armed groups and reportedly offered pardons, financial incentives and rehabilitation packages to combatants in exchange for laying down their weapons.

Adeyanju said that beyond policy arguments about security responses, such initiatives by state executives are unconstitutional and devoid of legal effect because terrorism falls under the exclusive legislative list of federal matters.

He cited the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, to explain the limits of gubernatorial powers.

In his statement, Adeyanju said Section 212 of the Constitution confines a state governor’s prerogative of mercy to offences created by state laws. He noted that terrorism is governed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, a federal statute, and is a federal offence related to national security.

Consequently, only the President of Nigeria, exercising powers under Section 175 of the Constitution, can lawfully grant amnesty or pardon in terrorism-related cases.

Adeyanju also criticised the practice of some states justifying pardons as part of broader security strategies. He warned that such actions risk undermining the rule of law and could embolden criminal elements.

Adeyanju said: “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.”

He emphasised that terrorism is a federal offence and stated that “only the president… can lawfully grant amnesty for terrorism-related offences.”

The lawyer’s position highlights constitutional debate over security policy and governance in Nigeria. As insecurity continues to pressure government responses at federal and state levels, the legal boundaries of executive action are drawing increased scrutiny.

Legal experts maintain that clarity on constitutional prerogatives is essential to uphold the rule of law while addressing complex security challenges.

Mr. Adeyanju’s comments underscore legal limitations on state powers to grant amnesty in terrorism cases, reiterating that constitutional authority for pardon in such matter’s rests solely with the President.

The legal interpretation adds to ongoing discourse on effective and lawful strategies to confront insecurity in Nigeria.