In December 2024, the Federal Government through the office of the National Counter-Terrorism Centre announced it had concluded about 1,743 terrorism-related trials between 2017 and 2024.
Addressing journalists in Abuja, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Mohammed Babadoko stated that within the seven-year review period, 742 convictions were secured, while 888 individuals were discharged and acquitted, primarily due to insufficient evidence.
Giving a breakdown of the terrorism-related trials, Babadoko stated that in 2017, 50 suspects were convicted, while 203 were acquitted, with 28 cases adjourned to the following year.
According to Babadoko, 684 suspects were acquitted in 2018, while 316 were convicted, with 33 trials adjourned till 2019.
Vanguard's analysis of the seven years records provided by Babadoko showed that the conviction rate for terrorism-related cases is approximately 42.6 per cent, implying that more that more than 51.2 per cent of the suspects were freed due largely to insufficient evidence.
Getting information about terrorism trials is often very difficult because the proceedings are conducted in highly protected places within military barracks. Due to outcry over the need to ensure transparency in the trial, a few human rights organisations and media representatives were allowed to monitor the proceedings.
Some persons familiar with the court proceedings but didn't not want their names mentioned, disclosed to Vanguard, some of the key factors responsible for a large number of terrorism suspects being discharged by the trial courts.
Poor investigation, evidence collection
Vanguard's findings during interaction with those familiar with the trials, revealed that security agencies involved in the investigation of many terrorism acts often lack the expertise, resources, or training to conduct thorough investigations and gather admissible evidence. Vanguard gathered that some prosecutors handling terrorism trials still rely majorly on confessional statements obtained under duress. In some of the aiding and abetting cases that were dismissed, the evidence against them were just their confessional statements which they denied making during trial.
Witness intimidation, protection
Another key factor why prosecutors are witnessing less convictions is due to lack of effective witness protection measures. Vanguard findings revealed that many witnesses in terrorism cases faced threats, intimidation and even assassination. Although trials are often conducted in secure military barracks, key witnesses often shy away from giving evidence during court hearings for fear of their lives. Vanguard gathered that the situation is further compounded because of Nigeria's limited mechanisms for witness protection, which discourages individuals from testifying.
Lack of inter-agency coordination
Vanguard findings also revealed that inadequate coordination among law enforcement agencies and lack of information sharing, led to many disjointed and inefficient prosecution efforts. Some defendants, according to findings, were discharged on the ground that the security agency that initially arrested them did not properly document their findings before handing them over to the agency responsible for the trial. Although Vanguard could not get the exact number of cases dismissed on this ground, a lawyer who defended a suspect, but did not want his name mentioned, confirmed that his client was dismissed based on a mix-up of evidence.
Limited forensic, technological capabilities
Vanguard gathered that the absence of advanced forensic and technological tools for analyzing evidence makes it difficult for prosecutors to build strong cases against terrorism suspects. In some instances where suspects were arrested years after they had allegedly committed the terrorism acts, the prosecuting authorities could not apply advanced forensic tools to sustain their charges.
International dimensions
Vanguard also gathered that another key factor responsible for the poor conviction record is the international nature of most terrorism acts. Many terrorism cases in Nigeria involve transnational networks such as Boko Haram and ISWAP, making it difficult to prosecute without international cooperation. Bureaucratic hurdles and differing priorities among countries also complicate matters.
HRW report on terrorism trial
A few years back, a report by Human Rights Watch, HRW, which was one of the agencies initially allowed to monitor some of the terrorism trials in the country, gave insight into their trial procedure which might be responsible for the current low conviction rate of suspects.
In the report, HRW stated that in seven of about 60 cases it monitored, Federal Ministry of Justice prosecutors brought charges for murder, kidnapping, and other crimes, including during gruesome attacks in Damaturu, Bama, and Baga in 2015, and the abduction of 276 schoolgirls in Chibok in April 2014.
It noted that most of the defendants were prosecuted solely for providing "material and non-violent support" to Boko Haram, including repairing their vehicles, laundering their clothes, or supplying them with food and other items.
The report further stated: "The proceedings were very short, with some lasting less than 15 minutes, raising several fair trial and due process concerns. Most charges were couched in ambiguous and vague terms without the crucial information Nigerian law requires, like the specific date, place, and details of the alleged offence.
"Other procedural lapses included a lack of official interpreters and the use of untrained unofficial interpreters; reliance on alleged confessions; charging previously discharged defendants again for the same offences; and unclear orders for rehabilitation for some defendants whose releases were ordered.
"The courts did not provide official Hausa and Kanuri interpreters for the proceedings, although the majority of the defendants in the cases observed only understood one of those languages. Ad hoc arrangements using people at the trial who could speak the languages appeared to be inadequate. In one of the courts, a Justice ministry prosecutor was co-opted as the court's interpreter in Hausa, while a soldier interpreted in Kanuri.
"In one case, an observer who spoke the language brought glaring errors in a co-opted interpreter's translation to the judge's attention, after which the judge changed the interpreter. Furthermore, the conflicting roles of soldiers and prosecutors acting as interpreters violates fair trial standards.
"The proceedings also raised concerns about whether the defendants and their legal representatives had adequate time and opportunity to present their cases. All defendants were represented by court-appointed public defenders from the government-funded Legal Aid Council. The lawyers did not present evidence or call any witnesses other than the defendants. In many cases, the lawyers appeared unprepared and unfamiliar with the case materials."
Senior lawyers raise concerns over trial
Some senior lawyers who spoke to Vanguard also shared their concerns over terrorism trials procedures and convictions in the country.
We did our job; courts decide who's convicted or acquitted - AGF's Office
Reacting to the development yesterday, the SA to the President on Communication and Publicity (Office of the AGF & MOJ), Kamarudeen Ogundele, said: "It is the courts that decide who is guilty or not. Our lawyers presented their evidence to courts but it is the duty of the court to decide if it is persuaded by them or not.
''We cannot be judges in our own cases. That is why it is called prosecution and not persecution. There is no need to be sentimental about the number of those discharged and those convicted.
"Our investigators and prosecutors displayed high level of professionalism. So it is not a case of lack of diligent prosecution or absence of evidence.
"We did our job, the defence did their job and the judges did their job. The essence of the trials is to give people the opportunity to defend themselves. At the end of the day the Rule of Law stands."
FG has no concrete evidence against many suspects - Falana, SAN
Human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, told Vanguard that the reason many terrorism suspects are being discharged is because the Federal Government does not have any concrete evidence against them.
He said: "The government has no evidence against majority of the suspects. Hence, most cases are resolved in favour of the suspects.
"Former Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN once announced the arrest of 400 terrorism sponsors. In spite of public demand for their prosecution, they were released and treated like sacred cows.
"Instead of prolonged detention of suspects, the government should conduct a thorough but speedy investigation and release those who have no case to answer while the indicted suspects are speedily tried.
Uncommon pace of convictions worrisome -Otteh, A2J
The Executive Director of Access to Justice, Mr. Joseph Otteh said that the real concerns should not be about conviction rate but rather about the uncommon pace of convictions.
He said: "I do not think the conviction rates are poor within the context of the challenges Nigeria faces. From the overall data, there is more cause to worry about the uncommon pace at which convictions were secured and what the implications might be for the fairness and integrity of those trials.
"Part of the concerns relate to the lack of full disclosure about the trials - how many courts were involved in the trials, how many defendants did each court try; how many defendants had access to legal counsel with appropriate levels of competence and experience related to the severity of the charges, etc.
"I say this because the information offered by the authorities about the conviction data is discrete and selective; it can possibly set off alarm bells implicating the observance of due process safeguards. In July 2024 alone it was reported that "a total of 253 cases were disposed of, out of which 125 were convicted".
"Criminal litigation lawyers know that, even with very reasonable efforts, it takes multiple years to complete a criminal trial, let alone one that carries the death penalty. So how do we get 125 convictions in one month? Or even in six months?
"Then they say that the convictions include "International Criminal Court criminalities". Who exactly has been convicted for ICC crimes? For which crimes exactly? Why are their identities not revealed? The ICC has demanded the prosecution of senior military commanders implicated in crimes against humanity, some of who ordered the brutal killing of hundreds of people, including children and mothers in Kaduna State and elsewhere?
"Why are the principal culprits still enjoying immunity for their impunity? Many people will interpret the inclusion of this category of convicts as a red herring, to deflect pressure from the ICC to prosecute the real culprits, and not as a bona fide effort to hold implicated persons accountable for egregious crimes. This unduly politicizes and undermines what ought to have been a genuine and transparent effort to bring abusers to justice."
Most cases are lost even before filing- Hannibal, ex-AfBA president
Former President of African Bar Association, AfBA, Mr Uwaifo Hannibal, believes shoddy investigation is largely responsible for poor prosecution record of terrorism suspects.
He said: Terrorism as it affects Nigeria has become a nightmare. The evil has destroyed families, cultural bonds and sent thousands to their early graves. Despite the amount of money successive governments claim to have spent on fighting this serious threat to our nation, the result has been minimal.
"Also due to the Nigerian factor, fighting terrorism has become an avenue to steal and loot public funds as we have seen in the past where funds meant for weapons and other security equipment grew wings.
'While it is true that the country has recorded success in pursuing criminal prosecution of these criminals, the level of success is abysmally low, only 42.6% success rate.
"Shoddy handling of the cases is mostly responsible. Cases are won or lost even before the charges are filed. Detailed investigation taking cognizance of due process, the Criminal code Act, the Evidence Act, etc., rushed filing of charges when investigation has not been completed will ultimately lead to failure. Vital witnesses and documents must be carefully put together.
"Another major problem may be the reluctance of vital witnesses to testify before the courts for fear of reprisals from terror gang members who have not been arrested. Lastly, government must understand that litigating and prosecuting a case costs a lot of money and so adequate funds should be provided and lastly, competent lawyers who are experienced in terror related matters should be drafted to handle such cases."
Reacting to the issue, the Executive Secretary of National Human Rights Commissions, NHRC, Dr. Tony Ojukwu, SAN, said: "Most of those arrested, their trial has been for too long that the witnesses, some of them have died, so the evidence, some of them, you know, is no longer admissible. It's a challenge when these things overstay. The profiling system that was used initially also constituted a problem. Then, they just pack people and by the time they start probing, the agencies will discover that perhaps only one person is culpable. Back then, when there was a bomb blast in a motor park, everybody in that motor park was arrested. There was no alternative intelligence, it was just like a physical and manual thing.
"I know that the system is improving but most of the suspects being tried now are people who were arrested up to 10 years and that would definitely affect the outcome of their trials.
"There is also the issue of witnesses coming to testify. One of the reports we got was that the prosecution also face is that people are not willing to come and testify for fear of attack by terrorist group members. You go and give information to the police, police will go and reveal it, you know, to the people. Tomorrow, you and your family will be exterminated. So that is a huge challenge for the prosecution.
"To tackle the problem of low conviction, we have to improve intelligence for gathering information. We need to be more scientific in terms of analysis of suspects. We need to eliminate use of torture to get evidence from accused persons so that at the end of the day, the margin of error is very small. Because if we don't do thorough investigations, no judge is going to start convicting people for no reason."
Loopholes in legal frameworks responsible -Ufeli
The Executive Director, Cadrell Advocacy Centre, Mr Evans Ufeli believes that the current legal framework for prosecuting terrorism suspects might be providing loopholes for suspects to explore, leading to their discharge and acquittal.
He said: "The nature of terrorism often involves covert operations, making the collection of robust evidence difficult. Many cases may lack the concrete proof necessary for a successful prosecution, resulting in numerous acquittals and case dismissals.
"The current legal frameworks in Nigeria are not adequately equipped to handle terrorism cases. Existing laws can be outdated or insufficiently comprehensive, providing loopholes that defence lawyers can exploit to undermine prosecutions. The lack of forensics and scientific crime analysis contributes a huge chuck to weakening the prosecution's case because it's proof beyond reasonable doubt.
"Widespread corruption within the judicial and law enforcement sectors sometimes compromise the integrity of terrorism trials. Instances of collusion or interference by those sympathetic to terrorist causes can skew the outcomes of legal proceedings. This is perhaps the leading reason why many terrorism cases never make it to the court for prosecution in the first place.
"Most times the fear of reprisal prevents witnesses from coming forward to testify against the defendants in terrorism cases, thereby weakening cases against suspects. This intimidation can create a chilling effect that deters potential testimonies that could be vital for a prosecution.
"Many law enforcement and judiciary agencies in Nigeria struggle with inadequate resources, affecting their capacity to conduct thorough investigations, compile evidence, and effectively prosecute cases. The prosecution most times is left to bear the cost of making sure his witnesses are in court. He will have to pay for their transportation, feed them and get them ready for the case at every adjourned date. The witnesses do not show up in court if these costs are not borne by someone."
Comments