Beyond Boko Haram: Exploring the Crisis of Definition in Nigeria’s Counter-Terrorism Legislations

it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope
and virtue could survive, that the city and country, alarmed at one common
danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
the gate of hell is the warning that all that enter should abandon hope. Less
dire but to the same effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism”
Empire: The United States and International Terrorism 1997
new levels of savagery unheard of in history. The magnitudes of the acts (9/11)
went beyond terrorism as was
around the world pointed to a need to develop new strategies to confront a new
reality (Maogoto, 2003).
became emboldened to launch multiple attacks at world capitals and major cities.
These attacks succeeded in in banding States together in what is now known as
the global war on terror.
witnessed the birth of Jama’atu Ahlis
as Boko haram). Nigeria, long respected as a regional power, especially in ensuring
peace and stability in West Africa was ensnared in a vicious circle of violence.
At the height of its infernal reign, boko haram was able to project power
beyond its base in Sambisa forest, even into Nigeria’s capital. Despite being a
signatory to several counter-terrorism Conventions, Nigeria was legally
ill-equipped to confront terrorism. It took the country almost two years after
the first boko haram attack to enact a national legislation to punish acts of
terrorism.
as old as the first terror attack. This paper explores this question,
particularly, within the Nigerian legal framework. Understanding what
constitutes terrorism is the first step in the war against terror, as it will
be futile in fighting what we don’t understand. It is our argument that the
definition of terrorism within the Nigerian legal framework leaves much to be
desired. It is our submission that there is need for a total overhaul of the
prevailing legal framework on terrorism in Nigeria.
and increased funding allotted to
post 9/11 has spurred and supported the publication of hundreds of books and
articles in the past few
conferences and a general flourishing of the field (Ganor, 2009). Despite the
growth of interests in terrorism, a universally acceptable definition of terrorism
continues to elude the international community. The unanimity of States in the
fight against terrorism has not been rewarded with unanimity of definition.
precipitated what we refer to as ‘the crisis of definition’. Attempts by the
international community to define
Nations’ 1938 Convention for the
Adopting a State-centric view, the CPPT defined terrorism as ‘criminal acts
directed against a state and intended or calculated to create a state of terror
in the minds of particular persons, or group of persons or the general public
(CPPT, 1938).
anxiety-inspiring method of
(semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic,
criminal or political reasons, whereby in contrast to assassinations, the
direct targets of violence are not the main target” (Schmid & Jongman,
1988).
1994 resolution opted to describe what terrorism is rather than offer a definition.
The Resolution described terrorism as “criminal acts intended or calculated to
provoke a state of terror in the public, a group or persons or particular persons
for political purposes”( A/RES/49/60). The definition by the General Assembly
is limited when compared to the definition offered by the UN Security Council,
which sees terrorism as “ criminal acts, including against civilians, committed
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or taking of hostages,
with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public, or in a
group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a
government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing an
act (UNSCS/RES/1566R ) .
eliminates the controversial elements of political or religious motivations.
This definition mirrors the position contained in the Arab League Convention
for the Suppression of Terrorism 1998. The Convention defines terrorism as “any
act of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in advancement
of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people,
causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in
danger or seeking to cause damage to the environment, or to public or private
installations or property or to occupy or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize
national resources”. Evolving variants of terrorism like cyber terrorism which
is devoid of violence continue to exacerbate the crisis of definition. The
availability of conflicting and competing standards further widens the rift,
thereby ensuring that attempts at advancing a consensus definition in the
nearest future remains impossible.
Legal System
terrorism in Nigeria is essentially codified in two enactments: The Terrorism
(Prevention) Act 2011 (hereinafter TPA, 2011) and the Terrorism (Prevention)
(Amendment) 2013 (hereinafter TPA 2013). As the dreaded boko haram fanned out
from its hideouts, annexing territories in Nigeria and boldly declaring war,
policy makers in Abuja found themselves at wits end on how to stem the
dangerous tide. Having been spared the wrath of mainstream terrorism since
independence, the country had no legal framework to combat the boko haram
menace. The military offensive against the sect created a legal problem for
Nigeria. Under what laws were captured members of boko haram to be tried?
Charging them under the Criminal Code Act would have produced an absurdity as
the group had already been designated as a terrorist group by the UN Security
Council and the United States. The TPA 2011 came to create the offence of terrorism
and a myriad of related offences. The Act in an unprecedented contains no
description or definition of terrorism. The act simply defines what it considers
as ‘acts of terrorism’ which for the purposes of this work will be taken as a
definition of terrorism. Section 1 (2) of the TPA, 2011 defines “act of
terrorism” (terrorism) as an act which is deliberately done with malice
aforethought and which: (a) may seriously harm or damage a country or an
international organization;
regarded as having been intended
international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act;
fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a
country or an international organization; or
international organization by intimidation or coercion; and
cause serious bodily harm or death;
facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an
information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public
place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major
economic loss;
other means of public or goods transport and diversion or the use of such means
of transportation for any of the purposes in paragraph (b)(iv) of this
subsection.
acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological
or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of biological
and chemical weapons without lawful authority ;
causing of fire, explosions or floods, the effect of which is to endanger human
life;
the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the
effect of which is to endanger human life ;
Nigeria which constitutes an office within the scope of a counter terrorism protocols
and conventions duly ratified by Nigeria.
committed in pursuance of a protest. However, demonstration or stoppage of work
is not a terrorist act within the meaning of this definition provided that the
act is not intended to result in any harm referred to in subsection (2) (b)(i),
(ii) or (iv) of this section.
criminal conducts prohibited in other legislations. Hence the justified but one
–sided exclusive equation of boko haram with terrorism in Nigeria is at variance
with the TPA 2011.
controversial religious or political motives
instance, the crime of hostage taking which is mostly motivated by financial considerations
is designated as an act of terror by the Act. By dispensing with religious and
political considerations, the TPA2011 seeks to avoid the controversial
profiling approach adopted by Western experts in their definition of terrorism.
The TPA 2011 subjects certain persons and groups whose agenda, tactics and
ideologies differ significantly from that of book haram to its jurisdiction. It
follows that the destruction of oil installations by Niger-Delta militants (who
also engage in hostage taking) constitutes an act of terrorism under the TPA 2011.
Either by seeking to compel the government to perform an act (pay amnesty
allowances) or abstain from performing any act (withdrawal of troops from the
Niger-Delta), militants have assumed the status of terrorist within under the
Act.
Nigeria’s refusal to adopt the international norm which embodies a distinction
between national liberation fighters (insurgents) and terrorists. TheTPA 2011
repudiates the age-long aphorism that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom
fighter by advancing the argument that line between terrorism and national
liberation is invisibly thin, if not non-existent. Flowing from this, we can safely
argue that members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and other active
separatist groups in Nigeria are engaged in acts of terrorism. The ultimate
goal of IPOB which is secession of Biafra would seriously destabilize or
destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures
of Nigeria, contrary to Section 1(2) (b) iii of the TPA, 2011.
definition [of terrorism] leaves much to be desired. If terrorism was a complex
phenomenon, the TPA’s definition of the term produced an even more twisted
dimension to it. Are we permitted to designate attacks by Fulani herdsmen in
Nigeria as acts of
affirmative insofar as attacks by herdsmen intimidate a population and includes
attacks upon peoples’ lives which may cause serious bodily harm or death.
perfect. These legislations aptly represent the times in which they were enacted;
when the threat of boko haram had to be countered with everything and anything
(including hurriedly enacted counter-terrorism legislations) at Nigeria’s
disposal.
threat of terrorism is ever present. The war on terrorism should be waged with the
mindset of eternal vigilance. Overhauling the existing legal framework and
representing it with a comprehensive unified legislation would be a good place
to start. Such amendments should whittle down the definition of what
constitutes ‘acts of terrorism’. The present state of the TPAs, 2011, 2013
makes reading difficult. With numerous deletions, insertions and renumbering,
the Acts stand out as one of Nigeria’s most disjointed legislations.
Punishment of Terrorism
23 (not in force).
a new guide to actors,
and literature.
Books, 1988.
International Terrorism,
and To Serve: Policing in
Self-Defence and State- Sponsored
International Law
on Measures to
49/
1566 (2004)

Nsungwara







