Obi wrong on negotiation with terrorists

The article strongly criticizes the notion of negotiating with terrorists and bandits in Nigeria, labeling it as "wrong, dangerous and morally indefensible." It specifically targets Peter Obi, the presidential candidate for the Nigeria Democratic Congress, who reportedly stated that he would negotiate with genuinely repentant bandits if elected president, while taking decisive military action against hardened insurgents.

“

IT is shocking that, despite the unspeakable atrocities committed by terrorists and bandits across Nigeria, some political leaders and opinion moulders still advocate negotiation, amnesty and reconciliation with mass murderers. This is wrong, dangerous and morally indefensible.

While acknowledging Obi's analysis that terrorism and banditry stem from leadership failures, poverty, and unemployment, the author argues that these conditions do not justify extreme violence. The piece asserts that millions of impoverished Nigerians endure hardship without resorting to kidnapping, murder, or terrorism. It contrasts Obi's current stance with his past actions as governor of Anambra State, where he reportedly maintained pressure on criminal gangs, forcing them to retreat.

“

While Obi’s distinction between repentant and unrepentant terrorists may appear pragmatic, it raises a troubling question: at what point do people who have slaughtered villagers, kidnapped schoolchildren, raped women and destroyed entire communities become deserving of negotiation?

The article highlights Nigeria's negative experiences with amnesty and negotiation programs for insurgents. It cites an example in Katsina State where an amnesty offer to bandits in 2025 failed to end attacks, with violence recurring in January 2026. This history, the author argues, demonstrates that such agreements are often characterized by deception and betrayal, proving worthless and sending a message that violence is rewarded.

“

He understood then that criminals retreat when confronted with force, not persuasion.

The author expresses outrage over a proposed plan in Katsina State to release 70 bandits facing criminal trials under a peace arrangement, arguing it rewards violence and implies victims' suffering is less important than their tormentors' freedom. The piece concludes that victims of terrorism endure immense psychological, emotional, and economic devastation, losing relatives, livelihoods, and homes, with entire communities displaced.

“

That the state rewards violence. That those who terrorise society can bargain their way to freedom. That victims count for less than their tormentors.