The chilling revelation that 48 high-profile terror financiers were allegedly "freed without trial" underscores a systemic failure that traditional judicial structures have proven unable to remedy.
As General Danjuma Ali-Keffi demands a probe into these "released 48," the discourse must shift from mere outrage to institutional reform.
At the center of this reform must be the establishment of Special Terrorism Courts.
Under the current system, terrorism cases are funneled through the Federal High Courts. These courts are already overwhelmed by a staggering backlog of civil, commercial, and regular criminal matters.
Under the current system, terrorism cases are funneled through the Federal High Courts. These courts are already overwhelmed by a staggering backlog of civil, commercial, and regular criminal matters.
In this "judicial bottleneck," terrorism cases, which are inherently complex and sensitive, often languish for years. This delay is not just a procedural flaw; it is a security risk. As time passes, witnesses disappear, evidence is compromised, and political "investments" by financiers begin to pay off in the form of quiet releases.
A specialized court system for terrorism is not an "extra-judicial" shortcut; it is a strategic necessity for three critical reasons.
A specialized court system for terrorism is not an "extra-judicial" shortcut; it is a strategic necessity for three critical reasons.
First, Forensic Expertise: Investigating the "Digital Blindspot" requires judges and prosecutors who are specialists in forensic accounting, cryptocurrency tracking, and the 'Hawala' informal value transfer system. Thus, a specialized court allows for a cadre of experts who understand the "digits" of terror.
Second, Security and Protection: Regular courts are often physically and psychologically vulnerable. Special courts can be built with the necessary infrastructure to protect judges, witnesses, and prosecutors from the intimidation tactics commonly used by well-funded terror networks.
Third, Continuous Trial Management: As outlined in international best practices like The Hague Memorandum, terrorism trials should be continuous. Special courts can avoid the "start-stop" nature of regular litigation, ensuring that suspects like the "48" are tried while the evidence is fresh and the national will is firm.
Opponents often argue that special courts risk becoming "Star Chambers" that bypass human rights. However, the true threat to human rights is the current status quo: where suspects are held indefinitely without trial due to a slow system, or guilty financiers walk free to fund more civilian massacres.
Opponents often argue that special courts risk becoming "Star Chambers" that bypass human rights. However, the true threat to human rights is the current status quo: where suspects are held indefinitely without trial due to a slow system, or guilty financiers walk free to fund more civilian massacres.
ALSO READ:
A special court operating under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 can actually enhance rights by providing the "speedy trial" guaranteed by the Constitution.
If Nigeria is to move beyond the "Anatomy of Inaction," it must stop treating terrorism like a standard crime. The release of nearly fifty financiers is a siren call for a dedicated judicial front in the war on terror.
If Nigeria is to move beyond the "Anatomy of Inaction," it must stop treating terrorism like a standard crime. The release of nearly fifty financiers is a siren call for a dedicated judicial front in the war on terror.
We need courts that are as specialized, as agile, and as persistent as the networks they are tasked with dismantling.
No comments:
Post a Comment