Historical Context of Counterterrorism Measures in Nigeria: The Need for Restorative Justice

Many approaches have been adopted to address the problem of terrorism in Nigeria, but none seems to be very effective in totally eradicating terrorism and its despicable effects on the safety and well-being of the people. To prevent the prevailing cycle of retribution and violence, the author makes a case for the employment of restorative justice principles and practice in responding to terrorism. Restorative justice is a contextualized and negotiated justice system that seeks to restore a sense of harmony and well-being among all those affected by the harmful act. All the primary stakeholders to the conflict, namely the victims, offenders, the affected community and relevant governmental agencies must actively participate in the definition of the harm, and the search for a resolution acceptable to all concerned. This article examines the military, criminal justice and conciliatory counterterrorism models employed by various government administrations in Nigeria starting from the 1980’s until the present time. It theoretically analyzes restorative justice and Amalatocracy, as alternative measures to countering terrorism in Nigeria. Relying on secondary data from open-source historical documents, existing literature, various government sites and other databases, it concludes that a combination of synchronized policies that suits the national circumstances of Nigeria could be effective. The findings emphasize the need for government leaders, policy makers, and researchers, to support the adoption of the tenets of restorative justice in countering terrorism. Keywords: Terrorism, Restorative Justice, Amalatocracy, Counterterrorism, Re-integrative Shaming, Repressive Measures, Retribution, Nigeria DOI: 10.7176/PPAR/11-4-08 Publication date:May 31st 2021

Critical Analysis of Nigeria’s Terrorism Prevention Acts of 2011 and 2013 (Amendment) and Implications on Human Rights

Terrorism is defined as acts of violence or threatened use of violence against a target population in an attempt to achieve political, religious or socio-economic objectives. Nigeria is presently experiencing what is considered its worst security situation since the 1967–1970 civil war due to the surge in terrorists’ activities. As a result, the Nigerian government has strategically developed measures including the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 and its Amendment Act of 2013 to end the scourge of terrorism. This study examines the legal frameworks for the prevention of terrorism in Nigeria vis-a-vis the principles of fundamental human rights outlined in the Nigerian Constitution and the International Human Rights Laws. It significantly highlighted the lack of balance between the provisions of security and protection of human rights as evidenced in the Acts. Some irreconcilable approaches border on charges punishable by death sentences, life imprisonment, search and arrest without court warrants, detention of terrorism suspects, deprivation of citizenship, interception of communications, proscription of organizations, and excessive powers accorded to government agencies. Some provisions of the Acts are found to be incompatible with Nigeria's constitutional provisions on human rights and international human rights obligations. Among others, this study recommends the need to address excessive punishments, undue powers of government agencies, and the lack of clarity in the definition of terrorism in both the Principal and the Amendment Acts and strive to balance the protection of human rights and the provision of security in Nigeria. Keywords: Terrorism, Human Rights, Terrorism Prevention Acts, Nigeria Constitution, International Human Rights Law DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/109-04 Publication date:May 31st 2021

Restorative Justice: Psychological Needs of Offenders and Implications for Safety & Security

Crime creates psychosocial needs for victims, offenders, and communities where they occur—whether it is homogeneous or heterogeneous. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system does not recognize and take steps to meet these needs. This failure stems from a mischaracterization of the state or government as the crime victim. Our contention is that this problem also emerges from the theoretical groundswell that posits that offender must pay for his or her crime through incarceration. The result of this skewed perception of crime and victimhood has not deterred crime as evidenced by the high rate of recidivism. Certainly, crime-created psychological and social needs, also referred to in this analysis as psychosocial needs, do exist. The overarching question for this analysis is: Does the traditional criminal justice system meet these requirements? Contrarily, the restorative justice system is a method of justice administration that focuses on meeting the psychosocial needs of victims, offenders, and communities. The goal of restorative justice may be realized through victim-offender conference, family group conference, and peacemaking circles. Our findings revealed that these programs are effective because their success is supported by factors such as high rate of participation; the satisfaction of victims, the offenders and the communities where the crime occurred; as well as the programs’ popularity

In Defense of the Nigerian Homeland

Recently, Nigeria has experienced various acts of domestic terrorism and kidnapping that may be rooted in many forms of motivations and agitations. These aggressions have resulted in homegrown bloodshed, émigré aggression, or even organized international network assaults against the population. The scourge of these terrorist activities has continued to weaken the Nigerian character or moral fiber. While the government is trying to combat these offenses caused by extremist activities, there are still remedies that have not been implemented prudently or applied properly. In this article, we propose various forms of the repertoire of actions which the government can use to effectively fight and combat terrorism in a democratic Nigeria