A federal lawmaker has raised serious concerns about what he describes as inconsistent justice in Nigeria's terrorism cases after comparing the sentencing of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu and a Boko Haram terrorist.
Disparity in Terrorism Sentencing
Member of the House of Representatives, Bello El-Rufai, openly questioned the judicial system's approach to terrorism cases during a session in the National Assembly on Thursday, November 27. The lawmaker highlighted the significant difference in punishment between two recent terrorism convictions that occurred within days of each other.
Hussaini Ismaila, a known Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) leader, received a 20-year prison sentence on November 18 after pleading guilty to terrorism charges brought by the Department of State Services (DSS). The conviction was delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Contrasting Punishments for Similar Crimes
Just two days later, on November 20, IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu was convicted on similar terrorism offences but received a much harsher punishment of life imprisonment. Both cases were prosecuted under Nigeria's terrorism laws, yet the outcomes varied dramatically.
Speaking from the floor of the House of Representatives, Bello El-Rufai expressed his confusion about the sentencing gap. "There was a conviction of a terrorist, a Boko Haram member. I believe his name is Hussaini Ismail. He was convicted for 20 years by a High court. He was a Boko Haram terrorist, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted last week and his own conviction said life sentence," the lawmaker stated.
Calls for Judicial Consistency
El-Rufai's comments reflect growing concerns about perceived unequal application of justice in Nigeria's legal system. "I don't understand why one terrorist is getting life sentence and the other is getting 20 years. There is this idea that justice is served differently and it affects the problem," he emphasized during his address to the house.
The lawmaker's intervention comes at a sensitive time when Nigeria continues to grapple with multiple security challenges across different regions. The contrasting sentences have sparked debates about consistency in judicial outcomes for security-related cases.
Legal experts and human rights advocates are now watching closely to see if these concerns will prompt any review of sentencing guidelines for terrorism cases in Nigeria. The development highlights ongoing tensions in how different security threats are treated within the country's legal framework.
