House of Representatives member Bello El-Rufai has expressed strong concerns over what he described as inconsistencies in the Nigerian judicial system, highlighting the stark contrast between sentences handed down to convicted terrorists. The lawmaker raised the issue following the sentencing of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment, while a Boko Haram terrorist received a significantly lighter term of 20 years.
The controversy stems from the recent convictions of Hussaini Ismaila, also known as Mai Tangaran, a senior figure within the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP). He was prosecuted by the Department of State Services for multiple terrorism-related offences. On November 18, 2025, a Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, sentenced Ismaila to 20 years imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to a four-count terrorism charge.
Two days later, Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was convicted on terrorism charges and handed a life sentence. The differing outcomes have triggered debate and public scrutiny, especially as both individuals were prosecuted for acts categorized as terrorism.
Speaking on the floor of the House on Thursday, November 27, Bello El-Rufai questioned the rationale behind the differing sentences. He emphasized that such discrepancies create the perception that justice is applied selectively, undermining public confidence in the judiciary. According to him, “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. 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.”
Legal analysts note that differences in sentencing can result from various factors, including plea deals, the nature of evidence presented, or perceived threat to national security. However, critics argue that the contrast between the punishments in these two high-profile cases raises questions about consistency and fairness in the application of counterterrorism laws.
Observers also point out that public trust in the justice system depends heavily on the perception of equal treatment under the law. The juxtaposition of Kanu’s life sentence with Ismaila’s 20-year term has already sparked discussions in media circles, civil society groups, and among political figures. Many are calling for transparency and a detailed explanation from the judiciary to justify the differences in sentencing for individuals convicted of terrorism-related offences.
As the debate continues, lawmakers and citizens alike await further clarification on how judicial discretion is exercised in terrorism cases and whether reforms may be necessary to maintain fairness, equity, and public confidence in Nigeria’s legal system.
0 Comments
Hey there! We love hearing from you. Feel free to share your thoughts, ask questions, or add to the conversation. Just keep it respectful, relevant, and free from spam. Let’s keep this space welcoming for everyone. Thanks for being part of the discussion! 😊