Nigeria’s justice system continues to wobble under contradictions that undermine the rule of law and erode public trust in the state. On one hand, violent non-state actors such as bandit leaders are courted with dialogue, financial inducements, and promises of reintegration. On the other, Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), remains in detention despite multiple court rulings that ordered his release. This double standard has become emblematic of Nigeria’s uneven approach to justice and conflict resolution.
Banditry has devastated Nigeria’s Northwest and Northcentral regions over the past decade. Armed groups responsible for mass killings, kidnappings, and village raids have claimed thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands. Data from SBM Intelligence estimates that between 2011 and 2023, bandits killed more than 20,000 people and forced over 250,000 to flee their homes. The Global Terrorism Index 2023 ranks Nigeria as one of the world’s hardest-hit countries, with banditry rivaling Boko Haram and ISWAP in terms of human cost. Despite this, successive state governments have flirted with negotiations. In Zamfara, Kaduna, and Katsina, meetings have been held with leaders of armed groups such as Isiya Kwashen Garwa, who was declared wanted by the Defence Headquarters in 2022 with a ₦5 million bounty for terrorism and killings. Reports indicate that these engagements have included offers of amnesty and stipends, despite the groups’ ongoing atrocities.
In sharp contrast, Nnamdi Kanu, who has not been accused of direct involvement in violent attacks, has been held in detention since his controversial rendition from Kenya in June 2021. His case has been at the center of national and international debate. In October 2022, the Court of Appeal in Abuja discharged and acquitted him, ruling that his extraordinary rendition was unlawful and that his continued detention violated Nigeria’s constitution. Yet the Federal Government appealed the judgment, and Kanu remains in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) in Abuja. His lawyers have decried the government’s stance as contempt of court, while civil society organizations argue that it represents a dangerous precedent of selective justice.
International human rights bodies have taken notice. Amnesty International has criticized the Nigerian government’s heavy-handed approach to separatist agitation in the Southeast while adopting conciliatory tones toward violent bandits in the North. Human Rights Watch has warned that this inconsistency risks further radicalizing marginalized groups and deepening national divisions. For many observers, the central issue is not whether Kanu is guilty or innocent but whether the rule of law is being consistently applied.
Nigeria’s contradictions are stark. While federal and state authorities justify dialogue with bandits as a pragmatic step toward peace, the same logic is not extended to a political agitator whose principal demand is self-determination—a right recognized under international law, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria has domesticated. This imbalance undermines faith in the justice system and emboldens perceptions of ethnic bias in governance.
Public opinion mirrors this disillusionment. A 2023 survey by NOI Polls found that 74% of Nigerians believe the government applies justice selectively, often along ethnic or political lines. In the Southeast, protests and sit-at-home orders by IPOB sympathizers continue to disrupt economic activity, fueled in large part by Kanu’s detention. Security experts warn that keeping him in custody against court rulings is counterproductive, as it entrenches resentment and complicates efforts to restore calm in the region.
Nigeria cannot heal while justice is applied unevenly. If dialogue is good enough for individuals who have orchestrated mass killings, it must also be good enough to ensure fairness and constitutional rights for a separatist leader. The principle is straightforward: respect for the rule of law must be universal. Anything less fuels hypocrisy, deepens divisions, and weakens the very foundations of democracy.