By Henry Ojelu
A proposal by the House of Representatives for open and transparent prosecution of terrorism-related cases has sparked diverse reactions among legal experts, with opinions ranging from firm endorsement to sharp scepticism.
Human rights lawyer Effiong Inibehe welcomed the lawmakers’ position, insisting that trials of terrorism suspects should not be shrouded in secrecy.
He said open proceedings would enhance accountability and give victims confidence that justice is being pursued.
“I support an open, public trial for terrorism suspects. Those who have inflicted such harm on Nigerians should not be shielded. Whatever needs to be said should be said publicly,” he stated.
According to him, holding such proceedings inside detention facilities or behind closed doors undermines public trust. He noted that concerns about witness safety can be addressed with masking, voice alteration and other protection mechanisms.
On his part, Evans Ufeli, Executive Director of Cadrell Advocacy Centre, expressed ambivalence, warning that openness could expose witnesses to retaliation if proper safeguards are not enforced.
“Many witnesses will be reluctant to testify because they can be easily identified and targeted by gang members. Unless the court protects their identities, they may be attacked afterwards,” he cautioned.
While noting that terrorists often show their faces freely online and would not be deterred by a public trial, he maintained that transparency is acceptable only when witnesses’ identities and voices are adequately shielded.
Civil rights advocate Deji Adeyanju dismissed the lawmakers’ proposal outright, describing it as a distraction from what he called the government’s lack of political will to tackle insecurity.
“I think the Reps are not serious. Some politicians hold meetings with terrorists in their constituencies. Is it an open trial that will solve the problem?” he queried.
Adeyanju criticised what he termed the state’s selective enforcement of security measures, arguing that authorities respond swiftly to peaceful protests while showing indifference toward violent extremism.
He added that the roots of the crisis predate the current administration, recalling attacks under former President Muhammadu Buhari and the loss of control over large parts of the North-West.
Offering a more measured perspective, legal analyst Dr. Ope Aladetola said the lawmakers’ call aligns with constitutional principles and could help rebuild public trust in the justice system.
He noted that while laws such as the ACJA and the Terrorism Prevention Act permit limited in-camera sessions to protect intelligence and vulnerable witnesses, these exceptions should not become a blanket justification for secrecy.
“Excessive secrecy erodes trust. Victims and the public deserve to know that suspects are being tried and that outcomes are not predetermined behind closed doors,” he said.
Aladetola stressed that Section 36 of the Constitution presumes trials should be public, and any departure must be minimal and justified.
An open process, he added, strengthens the legitimacy of counterterrorism efforts and ensures justice is not only done but seen to be done.
The House of Representatives is expected to advance its proposal through committee deliberations in the coming weeks, setting the stage for renewed debate over how best to balance security concerns with constitutional guarantees.
The post Lawyers divided as Reps push for open trial of terrorism suspects appeared first on Vanguard News.
