Maximum Sentence For Convicted Terrorists

Two recent convictions of terrorist leaders in Nigeria have shown real intent from the federal government to hold the outlaws to account.

The conviction of five terrorist operatives by the Federal High Court in Abuja within one week is a major milestone in Nigeria’s battle against terrorism. It is the worthy fruit of the tremendous work of the Department of State Services (DSS), the diligent prosecution teams from the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and the resolve of the judiciary to hold terrorists accountable.

However, while the convictions deserve commendation, the sentences imposed have provoked legitimate concerns about whether the punishment truly fits the gravity of the crimes committed. The Department of State Services and the Oyo State Government have rejected the life sentences as too lenient. The DSS has vowed to pursue the maximum punishment provided by law.

On 20 July 2026, Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, convicted two senior Ansaru commanders, Mahmud Usman (alias Isah Adam/Abu Bara’a) and Abubakar Abba (alias Abu Bara/Mahmud al-Nigeri), after they pleaded guilty to all 32 counts preferred against them.

The charges were among the most serious ever brought under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. They included terrorism, terrorism financing, kidnapping for ransom, illegal mining to finance terrorism, fabrication of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), coordinating terrorist cells and other related offences.

Particularly significant were Counts 30 and 31, which established that the convicts financed terrorism with proceeds from illegal mining in Boko village, Moriki District of Anka Local Government Area of Zamfara State between 2015 and 2025 and used ransom payments collected from kidnappings in Katsina and Niger states to procure arms and explosives for terrorist operations.

Justice Nwite gave life jail terms to the two men on Counts 30 and 31 and 20 years’ imprisonment on each of the remaining counts, with all the sentences ordered to run from the dates of their arrest.

Three days later, Justice Salim Ibrahim, also of the Federal High Court, Abuja, sentenced Abdulrazak Umar (alias Abu Khalifa/Abu Khalid), Yinusa Musa (alias Yunusa Bin Musa) and Shamu Adamu Sani (alias Abu Itisar) to life imprisonment after they pleaded guilty to some of the charges arising from the abduction of schoolchildren and teachers in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State.

The three admitted concealing information about terrorist activities and professing membership of Darul Salam, an affiliate of the proscribed Ansaru terrorist group. Umar also pleaded guilty to additional offences relating to providing terrorist training through a WhatsApp platform, promoting extremist ideology, inciting terrorism and engaging in illegal gold mining.

Their victims from Oriire in Oyo State spent 56 days in captivity, while two teachers, Michael Oyedokun and John Olaleye, were brutally murdered by the kidnappers.

Justice Ibrahim imposed life imprisonment on the relevant counts, with additional prison terms of between 20 and 25 years on others. Trial is to continue on the remaining counts to which the defendants pleaded not guilty.

Ordinarily, these judgements should have brought relief and closure.  Instead, they have left a sour taste in the mouth and reignited debate over whether life imprisonment is an adequate punishment for crimes of such magnitude.

Unsatisfied, DSS has declared its intention to appeal the judgement in the Ansaru commanders’ case and seek the maximum punishment allowed under the law. According to the Service, intelligence obtained during investigations established that the terrorists who abducted the Oriire schoolchildren demanded the release of Mahmud Usman and Abubakar Abba as a condition for freeing their captives. It also disclosed that two teachers were beheaded in an attempt to force the government to accede to that demand.

Section 24(2)(b) of the anti-terrorism law provides that in cases of hostage-taking, kidnapping and hijacking where the hostage-taking or kidnapping results in death, the offender is liable to a death sentence.

Fittingly, agency believes that life imprisonment does not adequately reflect the enormity of offences committed by men who financed terrorism through illegal mining, used kidnapping proceeds to purchase weapons, manufactured explosives and coordinated terrorist operations over several years, including the Oriire attack that resulted in the deaths of teachers and security personnel.

The Oyo State Government shares the same view. Describing the sentences as “cold comfort”, Commissioner for Information and Orientation Dotun Oyelade argued that life imprisonment does not reflect the gravity of crimes committed against innocent schoolchildren, teachers and their families. The state insists that the convicts deserve the death penalty.

As a newspaper, we find merit in the views expressed by both the DSS and Oyo State government whose citizens bore the brunt of the terrorists’ latest brutality.

Terrorism is not an ordinary criminal offence. It is a deliberate assault on the Nigerian state, its citizens and its constitutional order. We believe that those who finance terrorist activities, manufacture explosives, coordinate attacks, indoctrinate recruits and sponsor kidnappings are responsible not only for the crimes they directly commit but also for every innocent life lost through their actions.

Therefore, the scale of punishment must match the scale of offence, and serve not only as retribution but also as deterrence.

While judicial officers must remain faithful to the law and exercise their discretion without fear or favour, the law itself provides for maximum punishment in deserving terrorism cases. Where the evidence establishes offences of this magnitude, courts should not hesitate to impose the stiffest sanctions prescribed by law.

Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. Anything less risks diminishing public confidence in the administration of justice and weakening the deterrent effect that terrorism prosecutions are intended to achieve.

We encourage the DSS to pursue their case at the Court of Appeal and even to the Supreme Court if necessary. It is the Service, alongside the military and police, that their men pay the ultimate price in trying to contain the destructive activities of the convicts above.

For the families that lost loved ones, the schoolchildren whose innocence was marred, the teachers who paid the ultimate price and the countless Nigerians whose lives have been shattered by terrorist violence, justice delivered by the courts must be firm and proportionate.