•Repentant Boko Haram terrorists
Retired Group Captain and security analyst, Sadeeq Garba Shehu, has raised concerns over Nigeria’s approach to the deradicalisation and amnesty programmes for Boko Haram fighters, questioning whether the country has met the conditions required under international law to implement such initiatives.
Speaking during an interview on Channels Television last night, Shehu explained that international frameworks, particularly the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II, require clear benchmarks for granting amnesty during non-international armed conflicts.
He referenced Article 65, which advises that amnesty should be extended “as widely as possible” to low-level fighters but only at the end of hostilities.
“If we take the definition as given by Article 65 of Additional Protocol 2, it says ‘at the end’ of hostilities,” Shehu said.
“The National Committee of the Red Cross went further to explain what it meant. It says when there is a ceasefire signed, that is one aspect, when the opposing forces are no longer carrying out military operations, when there is a surrender document that has been signed, that is the end of hostilities.
“So unfortunately, if we look at these definitions, then there may be doubt as to whether we have reached that stage of the end of hostilities.”
Shehu said he believes the timing of the current programme may not align with these requirements, noting that the ongoing conflict in the Northeast raises questions about whether hostilities have truly ceased.
“Can we say we have come to the end of the conflict?” he asked.
“This is where I have a little problem in Nigeria.”
He outlined the four concepts typically associated with post-conflict management — disarmament, demobilisation, deradicalisation, and reintegration — and noted that deradicalisation in particular remains controversial.
“Some believe that once a terrorist, always a terrorist. Some believe that that belief system cannot be changed,” he said. “So rather than deradicalisation, they talk about disassociation.”
He acknowledged the skepticism that surrounds deradicalisation programmes and stressed the need to distinguish between low-level combatants and those responsible for serious crimes.
He clarified that the offered amnesty is not universal. It applies to fighters with minor involvement, but anyone found responsible for serious crimes such as murder, arson, rape, or killings will be subject to legal prosecution.
According to Shehu, the declaration of amnesty must be made by the state, but such declarations must be supported by thorough assessments of each individual’s role.
“What was he doing? Where did you arrest him? What was he carrying? Has this guy attacked a village? Has he killed somebody?” he said.
“If you don’t do that, and like, unfortunately, we did in Nigeria — you arrest them, and you keep them in prison for over 10 years — all the evidence that might have even assisted you in determining the level of involvement would have been lost.”
He drew comparisons with the Niger Delta amnesty programme but noted key differences in the nature of the conflicts.
“In the Niger Delta, it was not in technical terms an armed conflict that we had, whereas with Boko Haram, there was a declaration of war if you remember during the Jonathan regime,” he said.
Shehu reiterated that Nigeria is obligated under international law due to its 1988 signing of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. He explained that by signing such a convention, a nation incurs a responsibility to adhere to its terms, and this is a commitment Nigeria has made.
He added that while reintegration and amnesty are components of resolving conflict, the timing and structure of Nigeria’s current programme may fall short of internationally accepted standards.
