Who Deserves Amnesty?

Amnesty deals are fast becoming the fall back strategy of resolving violent conflicts that have been locked in a stalemate in Nigeria. From the 2009 amnesty programme for willing and repentant militants in the Niger Delta region, to undisclosed forms of amnesty for ‘repentant’ insurgents in Northeast Nigeria; now manifesting through the ‘Operation Safe Corridor’ of the Nigerian military  and recently amnesty programme for repentant bandits in Zamfara state; Zamfara state has been regarded as the bandits abattoir given the spate of armed bandits in the region.

In the case of Zamfara state, media reports suggest that the peace initiative of the state governor is yielding desired results given the drastic reduction of bandits’ attacks and release of kidnapped victims. Yesterday’s report says that, repentant bandits neutralized an armed robber in the state. Bandits that have caused wanton carnage in the state have option of amnesty, but armed robbers don’t.

However ideal these amnesty deals are, some issues need to be interrogated.  What conditionalities inform Nigerian government’s(federal and state) decision to declare amnesty for a specific violent group? What are the parameters for determining who deserves amnesty? What is the difference between a bandit and an armed robber? Is the difference in the willingness to give up arms? Certainly, from how amnesty deals have evolved in Nigeria, it appears that amnesty programmes are only extended to violent groups that have carried out deadly and targeted onslaughts within an extended period of time.

In analysing amnesty deals for immigrants in the US, Heritage foundation acknowledges that legislation for amnesty will spur more illegal immigration to the US. Burden of Amnesty interrogates the effectiveness of amnesty in resolving violent conflicts. The concern of this article is to ascertain the conditions for granting amnesty in Nigeria. Understanding who gets what, when and how will help in comprehending the extent amnesty can help to resolve, prevent conflict issues and make government more proactive than reactionary.