Bello El-Rufai, a member of the House of Representatives, has expressed deep concern over what he described as unsettling inconsistencies in terrorism-related sentencing across Nigerian courts. He said the conflicting judgments emerging from separate courts on similar charges have created confusion among citizens seeking to understand how justice is being applied in such sensitive cases.
In an interview on Voice TV, El-Rufai questioned why the Federal High Court judge, Justice James Omotosho handed a life sentence to Nnamdi Kanu, while another court judge, Justice Emeka Nwite delivered a comparatively lighter penalty of 20 years imprisonment to Hussaini Ismail for same offense of terrorism. He argued that the lack of uniform sentencing standards raises legitimate questions about the credibility and coherence of the nation’s judicial system.
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted I think last week and his own conviction said life sentence. I don’t understand why one terrorist is getting 20 years and the other is getting a life sentence.”
According to El-Rufai, terrorism remains one of Nigeria’s gravest security challenges, and for that reason, judicial responses should reflect consistency and transparency. He noted that the public is left puzzled when two individuals charged with terrorism receive sentences that differ so widely, despite the severe nature of their alleged crimes.
He emphasized that his comments were not aimed at defending or condemning any specific individual but at highlighting the need for clarity within the judiciary. El-Rufai warned that inconsistent judgments could erode public trust in the justice system and undermine ongoing efforts to strengthen national security.
If you love political news or like to get more news happening around the globe, use the button below to get more verified news happening around Nigeria and the world today.
Leave a Reply