A public affairs commentator, Mahdi Shehu, has raised concerns over Nigeria’s policy of rehabilitating and reintegrating former insurgents and criminals, warning that such efforts could send the wrong message to victims and law-abiding citizens.
In a statement shared on his verified social media account on Friday, Shehu criticised what he described as a growing trend by authorities to offer amnesty and reintegration opportunities to individuals who were once involved in violent crimes.
His comments come at a time when Nigeria continues to face security challenges, particularly in the North-East, where insurgent groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province have operated for over a decade.
Shehu argued that it is the duty of government to protect lives and property and to enforce the law strictly without compromise. According to him, the idea of forgiving offenders should not be the responsibility of the state.
“It is the duty of the state to maintain law and order, protect lives and properties and apply provisions of the law without bending back,” he said.
He added that forgiveness is a moral or religious matter that should be left to God, not government authorities.
“It is the prerogative of God to forgive offenders, sinners and other murderers on judgement day,” he stated.
Over the years, the Nigerian government has introduced programmes aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating former fighters who surrender. These initiatives, often described as de-radicalisation or amnesty programmes, are designed to encourage insurgents to lay down their arms and return to civilian life.
Supporters of the programs argue that they help reduce violence by offering an alternative path for those willing to abandon extremism.
However, critics like Shehu believe the policy may have unintended consequences.
He pointed to recent reports that over 700 former insurgents had completed a de-radicalisation programme and were being prepared to return to communities.
According to him, allowing such individuals to go back into society, especially in areas they once attacked, could create tension and fear among residents.
One of Shehu’s main concerns is the effect of the policy on victims and their families. Many communities affected by insurgency have lost loved ones, homes, and livelihoods.
He warned that reintegrating former fighters without proper accountability could provoke anger and lead to further conflict.
“Relations of their victims and law-abiding citizens will now be considering taking up their enemies,” he said.
Shehu further argued that the policy could create a dangerous incentive for crime, especially among unemployed young people.
He suggested that some individuals might see participation in criminal activities as a pathway to benefits such as training, housing, or employment, especially if they believe they will eventually be rehabilitated.
“Many unemployed youth may reconsider their loyalty, take arms, and become kidnappers, hoping that if they are caught, they will be rehabilitated and rewarded,” he warned.
This concern reflects a broader debate in Nigeria about how to balance security, justice, and rehabilitation in dealing with crime and insurgency.
Although Shehu strongly criticised the policy, government officials have often defended rehabilitation programmes as necessary tools in the fight against insurgency.
Authorities argue that military action alone cannot end violent extremism and that offering a path back into society can help weaken armed groups from within.
They also point out that such programs typically include psychological counselling, vocational training, and monitoring to ensure that participants do not return to criminal activities.
In some cases, community leaders are involved in the reintegration process to promote acceptance and reduce tension.
The issue of rehabilitating former insurgents has remained controversial in Nigeria. While some citizens support the approach as a way to promote peace, others see it as unfair to victims.
For families who have suffered losses, the idea of former fighters returning to their communities can be difficult to accept.
At the same time, humanitarian groups have emphasised the need to provide second chances for those who genuinely renounce violence, especially individuals who may have been forced into joining armed groups.
Nigeria’s security challenges are complex and require a mix of strategies, including military action, intelligence gathering, economic development, and community engagement.
Rehabilitation programs are just one part of this broader approach, but they remain one of the most debated.
Shehu’s comments have added to the ongoing national conversation about how best to handle former insurgents and reduce insecurity.
As Nigeria continues to search for lasting solutions, the debate over rehabilitation versus strict punishment is likely to continue.
For now, the challenge remains finding a balance between justice for victims, security for communities, and opportunities for those willing to change.
The discussion also highlights the need for policies that not only address the causes of crime but also maintain public trust in the justice system.