Katsina State Government’s recent plan to facilitate the release of 70 suspects facing trial for alleged banditry has sparked widespread outrage across Nigeria.
An official letter dated January 2, marked “SECRET,” reportedly requested the intervention of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC) to effect the release. Addressed to the state’s Chief Judge, the document cited Section 371(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Katsina, 2021, framing the move as a condition for sustaining peace accords signed between frontline local government areas and armed groups.
The directive has drawn strong criticism from legal practitioners, civil society organizations, victims’ families, and members of the public, who warn that freeing individuals accused of serious crimes undermines the rule of law and denies justice to victims.
Abdullahi Kofar Sauri of the Network for Justice described the plan as “a dangerous precedent,” urging authorities to prioritize compensation and justice for victims rather than releasing suspects. Security analyst Yahuza Getso added that the move “lacks sincerity” and could erode community trust in state security strategies.
Defending the policy, Katsina’s Commissioner for Internal Security and Home Affairs, Nasir Muazu, told DCL Hausa that the release is part of efforts to consolidate community-driven peace agreements with “repentant bandits” in areas including Safana, Kurfi, Sabuwa, Faskari, Danmusa, Bakori, Musawa, Matazu, and Dutsinma. He insisted that the accords have already brought relative calm and aligned with global best practices for reconciliation in conflict situations.
However, critics note that similar decisions by the government in the past have failed, with freed bandits often returning to criminal activities. Security analyst and crisis journalist Bakatsine highlighted ongoing attacks across multiple local government areas, warning that “releasing detained bandits without accountability could reinforce criminal networks.”
Residents and observers argue that such peace agreements often reflect desperation rather than genuine consent, effectively allowing abductions, killings, and illegal levies under the guise of reconciliation.
As debate rages across social and traditional media, legal experts suggest the matter could soon face judicial review, with stakeholders seeking clarity on whether due process was observed and whether public safety is being compromised in the name of peace.
Comments