By Davida Ademuyiwa, MA Law
British Politician | Founder, DaviGlobal International Trade & Investment | Co-Founder, Nigerian Transformation Council
Across Nigeria, the rising wave of insecurity has pushed many to call for “peace deals” or negotiations with bandits — an idea that keeps resurfacing whenever violence escalates. Some believe that if we could reach political settlements with insurgents in the Niger Delta or encourage reconciliation with extremist fighters, perhaps the same approach could work with bandit groups in the North.
It is a tempting thought — but one that requires great caution and clarity.
Not All Conflicts Are Created Equal
Nigeria’s history shows that dialogue can be a powerful instrument of peace. The Amnesty Programme for Niger Delta militants is a prime example: it was political in nature and aimed at addressing grievances over oil control and environmental degradation.
But the banditry that now torments rural communities in Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, and Niger States is not ideological — unless we are now being told otherwise. These groups are driven by ransom, power, and impunity, not by a coherent political cause. To treat them as political actors risks legitimising violence and weakening the state’s moral and legal authority.
The Role of Dialogue and Reintegration
That said, dialogue is not the enemy. Insecurity in Nigeria is deeply social — rooted in poverty, unemployment, and the collapse of traditional authority. Where local leaders can facilitate genuine disarmament, community reconciliation, and rehabilitation, such interventions can reduce bloodshed.
But this must happen under state supervision, security-agency oversight, and within the framework of the law. Any bandit who surrenders must face due process — whether through prosecution, amnesty conditions, or monitored rehabilitation. Peace cannot mean the absence of justice.
Why the Rule of Law Must Prevail
If we begin to equate negotiation with surrender to lawlessness, we will embolden more violence. The moment armed groups believe they can force the state to the table by killing civilians, the foundation of sovereignty begins to erode.
The rule of law is not optional — it is what separates negotiation from capitulation. The government can listen, it can mediate, it can forgive — but it must never abdicate its duty to enforce justice.
A Path Forward
Nigeria can pursue four parallel strategies:
- Law enforcement and military pressure to contain violent groups.
- Structured dialogue — only with verified, surrendered individuals under clear terms of disarmament.
- Socio-economic investment in rural communities to remove the breeding ground of crime.
- Judicial accountability with rehabilitation — those convicted must face prison sentences, but with a clear, legally supervised path to rehabilitation and reintegration. This balances justice with humanity, ensuring that reform and redemption remain possible under the law.
This comprehensive approach allows space for compassion without compromising the Constitution or the rule of law.
Conclusion
Peace in Nigeria will not come from moral shortcuts or emotional appeasement. It will come from a firm, fair state — one that knows when to fight, when to talk, and how to uphold the law while doing both.
Dialogue must be a bridge to justice, not a detour around it.
