THE futility and inherent illogicality of constituted state authority to appease suspected terrorists or bandits, as they are so called, cannot be more starkly proven by recent events. On the one hand, the Katsina State government is reported to have worked on this community-driven peace agreement for months. It is now agreed that the ‘bandits’ will stop terrorising peaceful communities, allow displaced persons to return to their communities, farms and markets, and release kidnapped persons.

The state government claims up to 1,000 kidnapped persons across local government areas have been released under the deal. In exchange, the government will release incarcerated terrorists, grant them access to hospitals and markets, but without carrying their weapons. Many persons and special interest groups have condemned this deal. The Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) in a well–articulated press statement describes it as ‘deeply flawed, misleading, and dangerous’.

On the other hand, however, shortly after the Katsina State government announced plans to release 70 terrorists as part of the so-called ‘peace deal’, the ’bandits’ expanded their criminality to attack a church in Kaduna State and abducted about 177 worshippers, an incident that was, curiously, initially denied by the state authorities. The attackers were sufficiently daring to return to abduct persons gathered to pray for the safe return of the 177.

In Kano State, terrorists whose area of criminal operation includes Katsina State are reported to extort at least N50, 000 per acre of harvest from sugarcane farmers; they are virtually running a parallel tax administration in their areas of occupation, especially the forest reserves of these states. In Benue State, terrorists are virtually on the rampage. Further south of Nigeria, on Saturday, 24th January, terrorists killed a police officer in Oyo State.

The evidence that appeasement is an exercise in futility abounds so widely in the past few years that it boggles the mind why state governments and local communities will engage in it. Past governors of both Katsina and Kaduna states have publicly regretted the peace deals they signed with terrorists: then Governors Aminu Masari and Nasir el-Rufai, respectively, declared the criminals untrustworthy and vowed to have nothing to do with them.

Let it be recalled that twice, in January 2017 and September 2019, the Katsina State Government negotiated peace deals with terrorists, but both collapsed due to the insincerity of the non-state actors. The 2019 agreement was reached with the terrorists’ leaders in the presence of heads of security agencies, traditional rulers, and chairmen of the eight affected local councils. The government even set up a Katsina State Amnesty and Dialogue Programme for this purpose. As part of the deal, the governor said, ‘we cancelled all vigilante and volunteer groups and we allowed [the repentant] to continue with their normal activities in the state’. The criminals reneged on the agreement and even went further to expand their activities over a larger territory in the state.

In December 2016, the then-governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai, said that he initiated a truce with marauding terrorists from Niger, Cameroon, and Mali who incessantly attacked Southern Kaduna communities on ‘revenge missions’. He even paid compensation to some who demanded it in exchange for peace. He was sorely disappointed. In March 2020, a wiser el-Rufai was sufficiently bitter to say, ‘There is nothing like repentant terrorists (or bandits). The only repentant bandit is the one that is dead [and] our intention in the state is to kill them…’

Let it be also recalled that as far back as February 2024, the Northwest Governors Forum affirmed that ‘We have agreed to commit ourselves to fighting banditry and other crimes and [to] say ‘no’ negotiations with any criminals, but those who surrendered and embraced peace would be integrated into the community’ said the chairman of the forum, Dikko Radda of Katsina State.

There is so much to say against ‘peace deals with criminals who commit such heinous acts as are indicated in the extant Anti- Terrorism Act. Defence Minister, Gen. Christopher Musa (rtd.) has warned against the decision of the Katsina State government, saying, rightly, that the action emboldens the criminals and compromises the anti-terrorism efforts of the Federal Government. But mere pronouncements are not enough. The Federal Government, which controls fully the instrument to enforce law and order under the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, must rise to its duty.

A situation whereby terrorists have the leisure to negotiate at all with the state and, to boot, renege at will is a damning comment on the commitment of the Nigerian government to prosecute the war against terror. Indeed, the impression is being created that the different levels of government in Nigeria are working at cross-purposes.

Nigeria is ranked sixth on the Global Terrorism Index 2025, worse than Somalia and Afghanistan and Congo; on the 2025 Global Peace Index, it has fallen one notch from 147th in 2024 to 148th of 163 countries. To appease terrorists and indeed criminals of any hue discourages Nigeria’s security forces and ‘insults’ the sacrifices of men and women who risk life and limb to keep the country safe.

A settlement with criminals that does not include condign punishment, repentance, and restitution to the victims is a slap on the face of the hapless sufferers of terrorism, many of whom, even now, remain in internally displaced camps, unable to live a meaningful, productive life.

Furthermore, at a time that terrorism in Nigeria has caught international attention enough to attract an airstrike by a concerned friendly power, it is disturbing that the government of Nigeria will be seen to acquiesce in any way to the demands of the very criminals the U.S. deploys resources to help exterminate.

The question cannot but arise by what authority and powers state governments and local communities do ‘peace deals’ with persons and groups that commit federal crimes. Under the extant laws, terrorism, by whatever name it is called, is a breach of federal laws. The Terrorism Act is a federal law and offences under it are subject to condign punishment, not the rules of engagement defined by sub-national entities. It stands to reason that no state should have the legitimate right to negotiate with offenders. On the one hand, that is a resort to self-help.

In view of General Musa’s pronouncements, why has the federal government not asserted its authority and moved decisively against peace deals with terrorists? On the other hand, however, is it surprising that state governments and local communities, under repeated attacks and faced with the terrible reality of terror, take desperate measures to stay alive? Is this notion far-fetched for states and communities that feel the heat, as distinct from a distant Abuja-based Federal Government? The Federal Government is bound, in line with its constitutional responsibility in Section 14(2)(b), to ensure the security and welfare of the people. Indeed, this sums up the reasons that government exists at all. The abysmal failure of government to fulfil its constitutional obligation is worse than regrettable; it is a shame!

The three tiers of government should urgently collaborate on security architecture, beginning with decentralisation of policing and localising security, since many of the criminals are well known within the communities. This, in addition to the use of modern technology, can make a huge difference in combating terrorism.

While adversaries can sometimes come to the negotiating table, a state worthy to be so called must deal with a non-state actor ofrom a position of strength. This should be a minimum to begin discussion; otherwise, the state authority is weakened.

Having tasted the low-risk, high-yielding kidnapping and other heinous crimes, terrorists are not likely to give up their business without the requisite pressure.

Appeasement, in whatever guise, is not the way to a lasting and comprehensive peace in the country; it is ill-advised, it is futile, it must be jettisoned.