A few days ago, Judge James Omotosho handed Mazi Nnamdi Kanu life imprisonment after convicting him on terrorism-related charges. This verdict marks a major moment in the Nigerian legal and political landscape. But along with the ruling comes a nagging question for many Nigerians: Why is this relatively swift, but other violent actors seem to walk free?
We know that authorised organisations repeatedly point to the actions of terrorist groups who openly share videos of their attacks, flaunt their weapons, and establish control over communities. We also know that at least some of those individuals are later labelled “repentant” and released — or not even arrested in the first place. Meanwhile, Kanu is being treated as a premier target. For a lot of Nigerians watching, it appears the application of “terrorism law” is less about equal justice and more about politics.
What happened and what the court said
In Abuja, Justice Omotosho found that Kanu’s broadcasts, his orchestration of “sit-at-home” orders in the South-East, and the use of his banned group Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to incite attacks, all met the threshold of terrorism under Nigerian law. He opted for life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, citing global norms that frown on capital punishment.
The glaring disparity: known terrorists still free or forgiven
Here’s where the double standard becomes hard to ignore.
First, there are militant groups like Boko Haram and armed bandit-terror networks that have repeatedly terrorised regions in Nigeria, with video evidence, membership rolls, community control, and demand for ransom. Yet, many of their members have been released under schemes that call them “repentant,” or simply go unprosecuted effectively. Meanwhile, public figures like Sheikh Ahmed Gumi (who reportedly negotiates with some of these same criminals) speak openly about these “terrorists” who still roam.
This contrast matters:
-
Terrorists with known affiliations post pictures, videos, yet are free.
-
Others captured under “repentance” programs return to society.
-
But one high-profile separatist leader — also accused of violence and incitement — receives a life sentence.
For many Nigerians, the message is clear: Justice is selective. It’s consistent only when it serves certain political ends.
Why this matters to everyday Nigerians
When a justice system appears to apply the law unevenly, trust erodes. Nigerians watch this unfold and ask themselves: “If the law is applied like this, what hope do we have for fairness when we face smaller infractions?” The notion of equal protection under the law, fundamental in any democracy, seems strained.
Secondly, it sends a dangerous signal: that acts of violence may be overlooked if the perpetrator aligns with certain interests. This weakens the fabric of national security and governance. It undermines the citizens’ faith that all threats — not just those politically convenient — will be addressed.
Finally, for those who expect fairness, merit and due process, this reinforces a belief that some people are untouchable, while others are made examples. When selective justice become the norm, it corrodes the idea that everyone is equal before the law — and that matters for your future, your rights, and the country you hope to build.
The road ahead: accountability must be universal
Sentencing Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment may serve one dimension of justice. But justice in a democratic society cannot stop there. It must be consistent. It must be transparent. And it must apply to all perpetrators of violence — whether they operate under banners of separatism, jihad, or herder-farmer conflict.
If the Federal Government is serious about counter-terrorism, the same vigour used in this trial must extend to all known violent actors. More importantly, the justice system must remove the appearance that some groups are “negotiated with,” while others are prosecuted to their full extent. This isn’t just about law, it’s about the moral structure of society.
For Nigeria’s youth, watching this pattern is instructive. If you believe in fairness, accountability and equality, you want to see the same standards applied across the board. You want a system where possessing influence, posting propaganda or owning guns does not guarantee immunity.
Conclusion
Life imprisonment for Nnamdi Kanu marks a major moment in Nigeria’s legal history. But it’s not enough for the justice system to appear reactive or selective. When known terrorists walk free, when “repentance” becomes a backdoor release and when legal outcomes differ based on profile or geography, then equality under the law becomes an illusion rather than a principle.
Nigerians deserve a system that holds everyone accountable, including the quiet man with a gun, the posted video of violence, and the organised group that negotiates ransom. If the courts and the government truly mean business against terrorism, then this should be the beginning of consistent justice, not a politically convenient exception. Because fairness matters. And it matters for the country we hope to build.
