By E. Monjok Agom
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
THE MACHINERY OF MASS JUSTICE
In the crowded, fortified courtrooms of Abuja and the makeshift tribunals of military camps, Nigeria has been conducting what may be the largest experiment in mass criminal adjudication in its history. Since 2017, thousands of suspects linked to Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province have been processed through a judicial conveyor belt that has produced hundreds of convictions, a handful of acquittals, and an enduring crisis of legitimacy . The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, recently announced that in a single phase of proceedings, 508 cases were presented to the Federal High Court, yielding 386 convictions, 8 acquittals, and 112 adjournments . The sentences ranged from five years to life imprisonment, with judges mandating rehabilitation and counter-radicalisation programmes .
This is not justice in the traditional sense. It is justice at industrial scale. And it raises a question that the Nigerian legal system has yet to confront with the intellectual rigour it demands: What is the criminal responsibility of the invisible defendant – the person who did not plant the bomb, did not fire the shot, did not wield the machete, but who supplied the information, provided the logistics, offered the safe house, or simply stood by and watched?
The law of parties to crime, codified in sections 7, 8, and 10 of the Criminal Code and now operationalised through the procedural machinery of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, is the doctrinal engine that drives these mass prosecutions. It is a body of law that determines whether a man is a terrorist or merely a terrorist’s brother; whether a woman is a logistics coordinator or merely a mother who cooked for her son; whether a cell phone call is an act of terrorism or an act of familial loyalty.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY
A. THE PRINCIPAL OFFENDERS
Section 7 of the Criminal Code creates four classes of principal offenders, each of whom is “deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence.” The actual perpetrator (section 7(a)) is the person who physically executes the crime. The enabler or aider before the fact (section 7(b)) is the person who does “any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence.” The aider at the fact (section 7(c)) is the person who “aids another person in committing the offence.” And the counsellor or procurer (section 7(d)) is the person who “counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence”.
In the context of terrorism prosecutions, these categories have been stretched to encompass conduct that would once have been considered preparatory at worst. The woman who passes a telephone message to a bandit kingpin is charged under section 26 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 for “aiding and abetting”. The individual who provides his premises for the commission of a murder becomes an accomplice under sections 198(1)(a) and (d) of the Criminal Law Code . The person who merely “keeps watch for or guards against intervention or discovery while the crime is being committed” is expressly rendered an accomplice .
This expansive architecture is not accidental. It reflects a legislative judgment that in the context of insurgency and organised terror, the distinction between the trigger-puller and the enabler is morally arbitrary. As one court has observed, the question whether a person becomes a perpetrator or an accomplice is “entirely dependent on his/her degree of participation before the completion of the crime”.
B. THE COMMON INTENTION DOCTRINE
Section 8 of the Criminal Code provides that when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and an offence is committed in the prosecution of that purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence if its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose. This doctrine has been applied by the Nigerian courts in cases of concerted assault and violence, and it is the doctrinal foundation for holding members of a terrorist cell liable for the acts of their confederates.
C. THE ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
Section 10 of the Criminal Code defines an accessory after the fact as a person who “receives or assists another who is, to his knowledge, guilty of an offence, in order to enable him to escape punishment.” In the terrorism context, this provision has been applied to family members who provide shelter, food, or financial assistance to fugitive insurgents. The mother and sister of a slain bandit kingpin were recently sentenced to 40 years imprisonment each for, among other things, concealing information about his activities .
THE EVIDENTIAL CRISIS: ACCOMPLICES AND CORROBORATION
A. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Section 198(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that “an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.” But the court must “direct itself that it is unsafe to convict the defendant upon such evidence” where it is uncorroborated in any material particular implicating the defendant. Section 198(2) defines an accomplice as any person who pursuant to section 7 of the Criminal Code may be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence as the defendant, or is an accessory after the fact, or is a receiver of stolen goods .
This framework creates a paradox at the heart of mass terrorism prosecutions. In the industrial-scale trials that have characterised the Nigerian response to Boko Haram, the prosecution’s case has frequently rested on the evidence of co-conspirators – persons who participated in the same criminal enterprise and who are now testifying against their confederates. As one Nigerian court has noted, “the term ‘accomplice’ has been defined in Okonkwo v State [1998] 8 NWLR (Part 56D) 210 at 257 as ‘one who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids and assists or is an accessory’ .
The practical consequence is that in the absence of independent corroborative evidence – forensic evidence, documentary evidence, or eyewitness testimony from non-participants – the convictions of alleged terrorists rest on the testimony of persons who have a powerful incentive to implicate others in order to secure leniency for themselves.
B. THE CORROBORATION REQUIREMENT
The classical test of corroboration was established in R v Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658, where the court held that corroboration must be “independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime” . In the Nigerian context, this requirement has been applied with varying degrees of rigour. In Major T. Akinlade v The State (2010), the Court of Appeal held that “if the only evidence available is the evidence of an accomplice provided the Court has satisfied itself that it is credible, such evidence can properly be relied upon by the Court” .
But in the mass trials of alleged terrorists, the question of credibility is precisely what is most contested. The ISS has documented that in the 2017 and 2018 mass trials, “proceedings were rushed, legal aid was limited, and cases were based on confessions rather than evidence. Case files were misplaced and witness protection was lacking” . Only four judges were assigned to trials of more than 5,000 suspects, and the trials lasted five days or less—too little time for prosecutors to present a case or lawyers to offer a defence.
THE INDUSTRIALISATION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
A. THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM
The numbers are staggering. In April 2026, Nigeria convicted nearly 400 militants in mass trials in Abuja, as part of a series of proceedings involving Boko Haram and ISWAP suspects that began in 2017 with more than 2,000 defendants . The Attorney-General announced that 508 cases were presented, resulting in 386 convictions, 8 acquittals, and 112 adjournments. International observers from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Amnesty International, and the Nigerian Bar Association monitored the proceedings .
But the ISS has documented systemic deficiencies in these proceedings: hearings took place in military camps with poor facilities; they were closed to the public and attended only by a select group of civil society and media; legal aid was limited; and cases were based on confessions rather than evidence . “In a struggle against ideology and indiscriminate terror, the state needs to occupy the moral high ground,” says ISS Senior Researcher Allan Ngari . “The brutality of Boko Haram is all the more reason to ensure procedural arrests and fair trials in a functioning criminal justice system” .
B. THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION
The industrialisation of terrorism trials has also raised profound jurisdictional questions. In August 2026, a Plateau State High Court ruled that State High Courts possessed the constitutional authority to try terrorism and terrorism-related offences under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Justice Gedeliah Fwomyon held that “although the TPPA was federal legislation, nothing in the Act expressly barred State High Courts from trying offences created under it,” and that “terrorism was not listed in the Exclusive Legislative List, meaning State Houses of Assembly retained the constitutional competence to legislate on the matter” .
This decision could reshape how terrorism prosecutions are conducted across Nigeria, potentially decentralising the mass trial apparatus and bringing it closer to the communities affected by insurgency. But it also raises the spectre of inconsistent standards, disparate sentencing practices, and the fragmentation of what should be a coherent national response to terrorism.
C. THE MILITARY DIMENSION
The frontline role of the military in counter-insurgency operations creates a separate set of problems. The military can seize suspects and evidence on the battlefield, but under Nigerian law, the military does not have powers of arrest for the purpose of a criminal trial . As Ngari observes, “Nigeria needs legislative reform to ensure that soldiers have the legal authority to arrest suspects ahead of a criminal trial” .
The military justice system itself operates under the Armed Forces Act, which establishes a parallel system of criminal justice for persons subject to service law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Nigerian Army v Brig. Gen. Maude Aminun-Kano (2010) addressed the complex relationship between the military justice system and the civilian criminal justice system, holding that subjecting a military officer to a second series of punishments, convictions, and sentences before another body – whether a panel, a tribunal, or a court-martial – would amount to double jeopardy . But the case also revealed deep tensions in the military justice system, including the concentration of power in the Chief of Army Staff to set up court-martial panels, appoint their members, and review their findings.
THE MORAL AND LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF COMPLICITY
A. THE FAMILY AS ACCOMPLICE
The most agonising cases are those involving family members of alleged terrorists. The mother and sister of a slain bandit kingpin were sentenced to 40 years imprisonment each for passing information through telephone conversations to the bandit and for concealing information about his activities . They had visited his camp in the forest, where they saw him in possession of firearms, but failed to disclose this information to security agencies .
This raises a profound question: Is a mother who fails to report her son’s crimes a terrorist or a mother? Is a sister who passes a message to her brother an accomplice to mass murder or a victim of circumstances beyond her control?
The traditional common law answer was clear: the nearest relations were not suffered to aid or receive one another in the effort to save a felon from trial and punishment . But the Criminal Code created a spousal exemption – limited, indefensibly, to Christian marriages – based on the recognition that a wife should not be compelled to discover her husband. If the law recognises the emotional bonds of marriage, why does it not recognise the emotional bonds of blood?
B. THE CHILD SOLDIER
The industrial-scale trials have also raised questions about the criminal responsibility of child soldiers. Many of the persons swept up in the mass arrests of 2009 to 2013 were children who had been abducted, indoctrinated, and forced to fight. Under international law, children associated with armed forces or armed groups are entitled to special protections. But Nigerian law has not developed a coherent framework for dealing with this category of defendants.
C. THE CONFESSION
The mass trials have been characterised by the use of confessions as the primary evidence against alleged terrorists. But confessions obtained through torture, coercion, or the threat of indefinite detention are unreliable. The ISS has documented that “proceedings were rushed, legal aid was limited, and cases were based on confessions rather than evidence”.
TOWARDS A COHERENT FRAMEWORK
A. THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL GUIDANCE
The Nigerian courts must develop a coherent body of jurisprudence on accessorial liability in the context of terrorism and treason. The existing case law – drawn from cases involving robbery, murder, and assault – does not adequately address the unique features of organised political violence. The courts must clarify:
(a) What level of knowledge is required to establish complicity in a terrorist enterprise?
(b) What is the scope of the spousal and familial exemptions in the context of terrorism?
(c) What corroboration is required where the primary evidence is the testimony of a co-conspirator?
B. THE NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM
The legislature must address the gaps in the law of parties to crime. The following reforms are urgently needed:
(a) The extension of the spousal exemption to all spouses and to other close family relationships, including parent and child, and sibling and sibling.
(b) The codification of the offence of misprision of a felony with appropriate safeguards.
(c) The reform of the military justice system to extend the ACJA to military courts, abolish command influence, and introduce judicial oversight.
(d) The establishment of specialised terrorism courts with trained judges, adequate legal aid, and robust witness protection programmes.
C. THE NEED FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
The ISS has noted that “the Nigerian government is still obliged to respect the rule of law and human rights. The country is a party to most of the 19 international treaties dealing with terrorism, and these legal instruments operate alongside international human rights, humanitarian, criminal and refugee law” . The UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy reaffirms respect for human rights and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for dealing with terrorism.
CONCLUSION: THE INVISIBLE DEFENDANTS
The industrial-scale trials of alleged terrorists and coup plotters in Nigeria represent a profound test of the criminal justice system. They test not only the capacity of the courts to process thousands of cases efficiently, but also the moral and legal coherence of the law of parties to crime.
The law of parties was developed in an era of individual wrongdoing, when crimes were committed by individuals or small groups, and when the boundaries of complicity were relatively clear. It is now being applied to an era of organised political violence, where the boundaries between the triggerman and the logistics coordinator, between the fighter and the facilitator, between the terrorist and the terrorist’s mother, are increasingly blurred.
The Nigerian lawyer has a critical role to play in this process. He must master the law of parties to crime – the four classes of principal offenders, the doctrine of common intention, the law of accessories after the fact, and the complex evidential rules on accomplice testimony. But he must also question whether the law as it stands is adequate to the task. He must ask whether the expansive interpretation of accessorial liability in terrorism prosecutions serves the cause of justice or merely the cause of conviction. And he must demand that the state, in its struggle against terror, occupy the moral high ground that only fair trials and the rule of law can provide.
As the Attorney-General has recognised, the rehabilitation and reintegration of convicted terrorists is essential to the long-term success of the counter-insurgency strategy . But rehabilitation cannot begin with a conviction obtained through a rushed trial, a coerced confession, or the testimony of an accomplice who has been promised leniency. It must begin with a fair trial, conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the Evidence Act, and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
The invisible defendants – the enablers, the facilitators, the family members, the bystanders – are the test of Nigeria’s commitment to justice in the face of terror. How they are treated will determine whether Nigeria emerges from this period of crisis with a criminal justice system that is robust, coherent, and just, or with a system that has sacrificed its principles on the altar of expediency.
Written by E. Monjok Agom
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
