• Hot Source
• All News
• November 26, 2025
• 9 views
• 27 minutes Read

Holding Government Accountable for Unlawful Killings 

Holding Government Accountable for Unlawful Killings 

 
By FEMI FALANA 
 
  
Nigeria today stands at a crossroads of tragedy and impunity. While the world watches with horror at mass shootings in the United States, which claimed no fewer than 250,000 lives between 2020 and 2025, we must pause and consider our own reality. In America, these killings are driven by a libertarian gun culture, fiercely defended by the National Rifle Association under the Second Amendment. Yet, even there, the rule of law operates: suspects are arrested, prosecuted, and the machinery of justice is set in motion. 
  
Contrast this with Nigeria, where the slaughter of ordinary citizens is not only persistent but often enabled by state inaction and negligence. Farmers are murdered on their farms, worshippers are killed in places of prayer, students are kidnapped or killed with impunity, and rural communities live in constant fear. These killings occur not because the government lacks knowledge, but because systemic failures, corruption, and class bias allow the perpetrators to act without fear of consequence. 
  
It is particularly striking  and tragically ironic, that former U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened military intervention in Nigeria, citing the alleged “Christian genocide,” while in his own country, mass killings remain unchecked. The message is clear: even the most powerful countries cannot fully protect their citizens when societal and political systems are weak. Yet, unlike the U.S., where perpetrators are pursued and prosecuted, in Nigeria, killers roam freely, uninvestigated and unpunished, leaving victims’ families to shoulder unimaginable burdens, sometimes paying ransom to criminals simply to reclaim their loved ones. 
  
This essay seeks to interrogate the underlying causes of this persistent failure — to understand why unlawful killing continues unabated in a country whose Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to life. Nigeria’s Sections 14(2)(b) and 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution are not abstract promises; they impose a binding duty on the government to ensure the security, welfare, and protection of every citizen, regardless of social status, religion, or location. 
But laws alone are insufficient when state machinery turns a blind eye. Therefore, this address is also a call to action: a clarion call for Nigerians to mobilize, demand accountability, and compel the government to fulfill its constitutional mandate. Today, we confront the paradox of a nation that can defend the wealthy, protect elites, and negotiate for high-profile kidnappings, yet consistently fails to protect its poorest citizens — the farmers, students, and worshippers who are the backbone of our society. 
  
The time to speak, to act, and to demand justice is now. For the sake of every life lost, every community terrorized, and every family left in despair, Nigeria must no longer tolerate impunity. 
  
At the heart of Nigeria’s Constitution lies a solemn promise: the protection of life and security of every citizen. This is enshrined in Section 14(2)(b), which declares that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” The wording is deliberate — it is not a suggestion, a policy goal, or a rhetorical flourish. It is a binding constitutional mandate. Security and welfare are not privileges reserved for the affluent, the politically connected, or the socially powerful; they are inalienable rights of every Nigerian, regardless of class, religion, or region. 
  
Similarly, Section 33(1) guarantees every individual the right to life, stating that no one shall be deprived of life except in execution of a court sentence after due process of law. Once again, this is more than a protection from direct state action. Embedded in this provision is a positive duty: the government is obliged not merely to abstain from killing but also to actively safeguard lives against foreseeable threats, whether these threats arise from criminals, terrorists, bandits, herders, or other non-state actors. 
  
In practical terms, these constitutional provisions demand that the state: 
  
*​Investigate and respond to threats against citizens before they escalate into killings. 
  
*​Deploy security forces effectively to protect vulnerable communities. 
  
*​Ensure accountability by prosecuting those who commit crimes against life. 
  
*​Prevent the emergence of systemic impunity, which emboldens criminal gangs and terrorists. 
  
Yet, the reality in Nigeria paints a starkly different picture. Despite repeated warnings, reports of attacks, and widespread public knowledge of bandit and terrorist activities, government agencies routinely fail to act. Farmers are slaughtered on their lands; children are abducted or killed; communities live under siege and the perpetrators continue their mayhem with near impunity. 
  
This failure represents a profound breach of the social contract. The Constitution establishes government as the protector of its citizens; when it abdicates this duty, it betrays the very foundation of legitimacy. Every life lost is a reflection not just of criminality but of state negligence, an institutional failure that allows violence to flourish unchecked. 
  
Moreover, the moral dimension of this duty cannot be overstated. Protection of life is the most fundamental obligation of any government. Beyond legal statutes and constitutional provisions, it is a moral imperative: a government that cannot secure the lives of its people has lost its raison d’être. Citizens cannot be expected to thrive, contribute to the nation, or feel safe when their right to life is treated as optional or secondary. 
  
Sections 14(2)(b) and 33(1) are not aspirational; they are binding commands. The Nigerian state is constitutionally and morally obliged to guarantee that no citizen is left vulnerable to killing, kidnapping, or terror. Failure to meet this obligation is a direct violation of both law and conscience, and it is a call to urgent action and accountability. 
  
The persistence of unlawful killings in Nigeria is not accidental; it is the outcome of structural, political, and economic failures that have systematically weakened the state’s ability and, at times, its willingness to protect its citizens. These failures manifest across multiple dimensions: 
  
  
At the heart of the problem lies the government’s approach to economic governance. The Bola Tinubu administration, following in the footsteps of neoliberal policies of previous administrations, has implemented economic measures that have alienated ordinary Nigerians and widened the gap between the state and its citizens. 
  
Economic alienation undermines national unity and erodes the social fabric necessary for collective defence. When citizens feel excluded from governance, marginalized in economic opportunity, and neglected in security, the state loses the moral authority to demand loyalty or collective action. 
  
The legitimacy of any government depends not only on its constitutional mandate but also on its capacity to guarantee the life and livelihood of its people. In Nigeria, the failure to address unemployment, economic disparity, and insecurity has created fertile ground for insurgency, banditry, and terrorism. Citizens are left to fend for themselves, and in many cases, their only recourse is to negotiate with criminals or pay ransoms — a scenario that would be unimaginable in a functioning state. 
  
The ongoing herder-farmer violence is one of the clearest illustrations of state neglect. Although the federal and some state governments have repeatedly resolved to ban open grazing and establish ranches, these measures remain largely unenforced. Herds of cattle continue to roam farmland, and innocent farmers are slaughtered or driven from their lands. 
  
The urgent solution is straightforward: ban open grazing nationwide and, in the interim, transport cattle in trailers to minimize contact with farmlands until ranches are fully operational. The government must recognize that protecting farmers is not merely an economic necessity; it is a constitutional and moral duty under Section 14(2)(b) and Section 33(1). Every day that this violence continues without effective state intervention, the social contract with citizens is further eroded. 
  
  
Another driver of insecurity is the state’s failure to combat high-level criminality. The federal government has acknowledged that gold worth billions of dollars is smuggled out of Nigeria in private jets by politically connected individuals. Yet, prosecutions are rare, and many of the perpetrators continue to operate with impunity. 
  
This structural complicity fuels organized crime, terrorism, and banditry. Criminal gangs exploit the vacuum left by weak enforcement, knowing that powerful actors shield them from arrest or prosecution. To curb the killings and restore public confidence, the government must urgently arrest and prosecute these high-profile sponsors of smuggling and criminal networks. This is not only a legal obligation but a prerequisite for restoring national security and deterring further violence. 
  
  
Perhaps the most glaring manifestation of inequality in the state’s protection of life is the double standard in handling kidnappings and security threats. When judges, former public officers, or elites are kidnapped, the government acts swiftly, deploying military resources, intelligence operatives, and sometimes paying ransom to secure their release. 
  
Conversely, when ordinary citizens — farmers, students, worshippers — are abducted, their families are left to negotiate with criminals or pay ransom themselves, often at the whim of armed gangs. This is not only a moral failure but also a constitutional violation. Justice demands that the state assume responsibility wherever citizens are compelled to pay ransom. The government must refund ransoms paid by victims’ families as recognition of its dereliction of duty and as a deterrent to future kidnappings. 
  
The double standard in state response undermines public trust and fosters a perception that some lives are more valuable than others, further entrenching social inequality and exposing ordinary citizens to continual violence. 
  
  
The recurring massacres, kidnappings, and extrajudicial killings in Nigeria are not only national tragedies — they are international law violations. The ECOWAS Court of Justice has, over the years, firmly established that when a state fails to protect its citizens from known or foreseeable threats to life, it incurs international responsibility under Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees that “Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person.” 
  
This jurisprudence is not abstract; it has been tested in cases where the Court found governments across West Africa liable for preventable deaths arising from negligence, inaction, or institutional failure. Nigeria, in particular, has been a subject of such judicial censure. The principles from these cases reveal a pattern of accountability that can, and should, be invoked against the Nigerian State for the continuing wave of unlawful killings. 
  
In this landmark case, the ECOWAS Court examined Nigeria’s liability for the death of Mr. Afolalu, a naval officer who was abducted and killed by BokoHaram insurgents after his family had repeatedly warned the authorities of credible threats to his life. 
  
Despite being aware of the imminent danger, the government failed to act — a failure that proved fatal. The Court held that Nigeria had violated Article 4 of the African Charter, finding that the right to life imposes a positive duty on the State to take preventive operational measures once it becomes aware of a real and immediate risk to an individual’s life. 
  
The Court’s reasoning was clear and instructive: it is not enough for a government to refrain from killing its citizens; it must actively protect them from foreseeable threats, whether from state agents or non-state actors. 
  
The state’s responsibility under international law is engaged whenever it knew or ought to have known of a risk to life and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. 
  
By this same reasoning, Nigeria’s continued failure to secure rural communities under repeated attacks by terrorists and bandits — despite years of public warnings, official reports, and security briefings — amounts to a continuing international wrong. The government cannot plead ignorance or helplessness where the facts of danger are notorious and recurring. 
  
  
In another Nigerian case, the Court considered the tragic death of Officer-Cadet El-Shaddai Kwasu, who drowned during swimming training at the Nigerian Defence Academy (NDA) in Kaduna. The evidence showed that the institution failed to provide adequate safety measures, supervision, and medical readiness — acts of negligence that led directly to the cadet’s death. 
  
The ECOWAS Court held that Nigeria had violated the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter and awarded the family USD 75,000 in compensation. The Court’s language was decisive: the duty to protect life extends beyond acts of direct violence; it encompasses the obligation to ensure safety within all institutions under state control, whether military or civilian. 
  
Where a state institution’s negligence, omission, or lack of precaution results in death, the state bears international responsibility for failure to fulfill its duty of care. 
  
  
If the Nigerian State can be held liable for the preventable death of a cadet within a controlled environment, how much more culpable is it for the widespread killings of thousands of citizens in uncontrolled rural and urban areas, where the government has failed to deploy adequate security despite clear warnings? The Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that negligence, omission, or failure to act are as culpable as active violations. 
  
  
This case arose from the death of a 15-year-old Nigerian student, Augustine Chukwuebuka Ogukwe, who drowned during a school excursion to the beach in Tema, Ghana. The Ghanaian authorities failed to ensure safety measures and later failed to investigate the circumstances of his death. 
  
  
The ECOWAS Court found the Republic of Ghana liable for negligence and failure to protect life, awarding the victim’s family USD 250,000 as compensation. The Court emphasized that the right to life imposes both preventive and investigative obligations on states. It is not sufficient for a government to express sympathy after a death; it must take steps to prevent foreseeable harm and, where death occurs, conduct a thorough and impartial investigation to ensure accountability. 
  
States are obliged not only to prevent unlawful deaths but also to investigate them effectively. Failure to do either constitutes a violation of the right to life. 
  
  
In the context of recurring massacres in Plateau, Benue, Kaduna, and ZamfaraStates, the Nigerian government’s habitual failure to investigate or prosecute perpetrators is not a domestic administrative lapse — it is a continuing violation of international human rights law. Under the Ogukwe precedent, Nigeria’s failure to investigate mass killings and prosecute offenders satisfies the threshold of international liability for the loss of life. 
  
The Community Court found that the government of Nigeria has failed to protect the rights of the deceased and their communities to life and adequate security thus violating Nigeria’s Constitution and the various international protocols and treaties the Defendant country is a signatory to. The Court mandated the Defendant to take adequate steps in securing the lives and properties of the Applicants, members of the TseAgu, Mbaguene, Ada areas of Guma LGA of Benue State. The Court also ordered the Federal Government of Nigeria to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of the January 2018 mass killings and destruction in the above enumerated communities. 
  
The Applicants who hail from and reside in Benue State, Nigeria had instituted the action over the incessant killing, arson and wanton destruction of properties perpetrated by Fulani herdsmen. In a judgement delivered On Tuesday, 26th Day Of February, 2019, the Community Court had held: 
  
“The Court finds the Respondent in violation of their obligation to protect the human rights of the Agatu Community and prevent its violation. 
  
The Court Orders the Respondent to investigate the mass killings and destruction of properties in the alleged Agatucommunities of Benue State, identify and prosecute the perpetrators and redress the victims thereof. 
  
The Court Orders the Respondent to provide adequate security, deploy more security personnel to the area to protect the community to prevent further occurrences of that mayhem.” 
  
6.​Onwuham & Ors v. Nigeria & Anor — ECW/CCJ/APP/13/14, Judgment delivered 3/07/2018 
  
The Applicants filed this action against the Respondents for the violation of their right to dignity, right to property, right to fair hearing and effective investigation. The Applicants aver that the Respondent through its agents arbitrarily demolished its 15 bedroom flats with 2 sitting rooms, 6 bedroom flats with a sitting room and a 7 bedroom flats with a sitting room. That the demolition was carried out without fair trial or in furtherance of a Court order. In a judgment delivered on July 3, 2018, the ECCJ held: 
  
The Defendant to pay the sum of One hundred million Eighty nine thousand, one hundred and forty naira (N100,089,140.00) being special damages representing the total cost of the buildings and other household items destroyed by the Defendants. 
  
The sum of Fifty Million Naira (N50,000,000.00) jointly paid as general damages for the violation of the rights of the Applicants fundamental rights to fair hearing, human dignity and right to property. 
  
The Court cannot grant the rest of the claims of the Plaintiffs. 
  
DIRECTS, The Defendant to investigate the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the 1st Applicant’s son, Obinna Kasarachi Onwuham with a view to determining his whereabouts, and where an offence is found to have been committed, prosecute the culprits in accordance with law. 
  
  
These cases collectively affirm that state inaction in the face of preventable harm is itself a form of complicity. Whether through indifference, incompetence, or political calculation, when a state consistently fails to act against known threats, it ceases to be a neutral bystander — it becomes an enabler of violence. 
  
The ECOWAS Court’s jurisprudence has expanded the scope of accountability from direct state killings to indirect state failures — failures to regulate, to protect, or to prosecute. This evolving principle reflects a modern understanding of sovereignty: that sovereignty entails responsibility, and where a state fails in that responsibility, regional and international tribunals will intervene. 
  
8.​Inference: Nigeria’s Liability Under ECOWAS Standards 
  
Applying these principles to the current crisis, Nigeria’s liability becomes clear. 
  
The government has been repeatedly warned through security reports, media coverage, and public protests — of ongoing massacres by terrorists, bandits, and so-called “unknown gunmen.” Yet, there has been no coordinated or sustained response, no effective investigations, and no consistent prosecutions. 
  
By the standards set in Afolalu, Kwasu, and Ogukwe, Nigeria has breached its duty to: 
  
Prevent foreseeable threats to life; 
  
Protect citizens from violence by state and non-state actors; 
  
Investigate and prosecute perpetrators of unlawful killings; and 
  
Provide remedies and compensation to victims and their families. 
  
Under international law, failure to act is actionable. The ECOWAS Court could, therefore, find Nigeria liable for mass violations of the right to life, just as it has found other West African states liable for single instances of preventable death. 
  
In effect, every village sacked, every farmer killed, every child abducted, and every ransom paid under the shadow of government inaction strengthens the case for international accountability. The continuing bloodshed in Nigeria is not merely a domestic tragedy — it is a breach of Nigeria’s international human rights obligations. 
  
(a)​Domestic Governance Breakdown and Erosion of Sovereignty 
  
Nigeria’s failure to protect its own citizens has now assumed the dimension of a constitutional emergency. The Nigerian State, which the 1999 Constitution charges in Section 14(2)(b) to make “the security and welfare of the people the primary purpose of government,” has abdicated that sacred duty. Under Section 33(1), the right to life is not only fundamental but non-derogable; yet, citizens are being slaughtered daily without consequence. 
  
The present administration’s neoliberal economic policies including the sudden removal of fuel subsidies, currency devaluation, and the unrestrained marketization of essential goods, have impoverished millions, widened inequality, and alienated the very people on whom the legitimacy of the state depends. A hungry and hopeless populace cannot be mobilized to defend national sovereignty. Thus, the Nigerian state is increasingly perceived not as a protector, but as a predator — enriching a few while abandoning the many to violence. 
  
In the vacuum of protection, parallel sovereignties have emerged. Terrorists, bandits, herders, and cult groups now control vast territories where they impose levies, extract rents, and dictate movement. The result is a fractured sovereignty — one where the monopoly of violence has shifted from the state to non-state actors. This is not just a governance crisis; it is the quiet disintegration of the Republic itself. 
  
The Nigerian Army’s own admission during the 2021 Anambra governorship election — that troops were deployed to the collation centre to ensure security, reflects how state agencies are forced into reactive measures when governance failures already allow criminal actors to dominate public space.  
  
Similarly, the African Court has emphasized that failure to protect journalists or citizens investigating state or political wrongdoing constitutes complicity in violation of the right to life and freedom of expression (Zongo v. Burkina Faso). This underscores that state negligence itself can constitute human rights violations, not just direct attacks by third parties. 
  
(b)​Contradictory and Weak Federal–State Security Coordination 
  
The architecture of Nigeria’s criminal justice system is collapsing under political indifference and bureaucratic paralysis. In 2016, the Attorney-General of the Federation granted a blanket fiat to all State Attorneys-General to prosecute terrorism cases occurring within their jurisdictions. Yet, nine years later, the vast majority of those Attorneys-General have failed to exercise that power. Killer suspects paraded by the police are released through corruption, while families of victims receive no justice. 
  
Instead of prosecution, some state governments negotiate with terrorists, grant them amnesty, and even compensate them, all in the name of peace. This stands in direct contradiction to the federal government’s public policy of refusing to negotiate with criminals. It also sends a dangerous message: that crime pays if it is large enough to threaten the state. 
  
The federal government’s ban on ransom payments further exposes its double standards. When a judge, a legislator, or a former governor is kidnapped, the state deploys military resources to ensure their release. But when ordinary citizens are abducted, their families are left to sell land, borrow money, and beg for help, sometimes even taxed by criminal gangs. This discriminatory approach mocks the constitutional promise of equality before the law. 
  
Justice demands that when citizens are compelled to pay ransom due to state inaction, the government must not only refund such payments but also prosecute the officers whose negligence made it necessary. Anything short of that perpetuates impunity and reinforces the perception that government values elite lives above common lives. 
  
The ECOWAS Court has stressed that states are obliged to take positive preventive and remedial action to safeguard lives, meaning that failure to enforce security consistently violates human rights obligations.  
  
The Nigerian security crisis is inseparable from the state’s economic failures. The federal government itself has admitted that gold worth billions of dollars is being smuggled out of Nigeria in private jets by politically connected individuals. Yet, not a single person has been brought to justice. 
  
This criminal impunity finances terrorism, funds arms trafficking, and sustains the very insecurity the government claims to be fighting. It is a vicious circle: economic corruption fuels violence, and violence provides cover for further corruption. 
  
A government that cannot enforce its own anti-smuggling laws cannot hope to secure its borders or its people. National defence must therefore include economic defence — by arresting and prosecuting those who profit from the blood economy of banditry and smuggling. Nigeria cannot fight terrorism abroad while enriching its sponsors at home. 
  
  
Nigeria’s security failures are compounded by its foreign policy drift. While Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger Republic have formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) — a bold regional coalition committed to defending African sovereignty and expelling neo-colonial military influence — Nigeria has chosen to stand aloof, retreating into isolation and indecision. 
  
Instead of pursuing an African-centered security partnership, the Tinubuadministration has turned once again to France — a nation whose military presence in the Sahel has been rejected by the very countries it claimed to protect. This misalignment not only alienates Nigeria from its neighbours but also undermines ECOWAS solidarity at a time when terrorism knows no borders. 
  
Nigeria’s leadership role in West Africa is fast eroding. It must urgently engage with the AES to revive the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) — the regional mechanism that once successfully pushed back Boko Haram. By refusing to act collectively, Nigeria endangers its own northern frontiers and cedes moral leadership to smaller, poorer, but more resolute nations. 
  
The lesson from the Sahel is clear: no African country can fight terrorism alone. Our enemies cooperate; our governments must do the same. 
  
(e)​The Path Forward 
  
To reclaim its moral and constitutional authority, Nigeria must first restore public trust through visible justice. Every case of unlawful killing — whether by terrorists, bandits, or state agents — must be investigated, prosecuted, and punished. Justice delayed is not only justice denied; it is governance betrayed. 
  
The country must reorient its foreign policy away from dependency on Western powers and toward a vision of Pan-African solidarity rooted in mutual defence and self-determination. The same courage that inspired African liberation struggles must now animate our fight against terror, corruption, and bad governance. 
  
Nigeria must rebuild domestic capacity — both legal and moral — to make the protection of life the cornerstone of government policy. Security is not a privilege for the powerful; it is the birthright of every citizen. A government that cannot protect life cannot claim legitimacy. 
  
Only a people-centred, constitutionally faithful, and justice-driven government can restore Nigeria’s security, sovereignty, and dignity in the community of nations. Until that transformation occurs, unlawful killings will remain the tragic mirror of a state at war with its own people. 
  
In tandem with security reforms, proper enforcement of property and land rights under Section 11 of the Land Use Act is essential. The Act vests all land in each state in the Governor to hold in trust for the people. This implies a positive obligation: the state must protect citizens’ property rights and cannot arbitrarily dispose of, seize, or allocate land in a manner that undermines life, livelihood, or justice. Arbitrary enforcement of land or housing policies without due process is a direct reflection of governance failure. 
  
The combination of security negligence, arbitrary enforcement, and impunity mirrors patterns observed in the Zongo case and the Anambra election deployment: government inaction or selective intervention signals complicity or systemic failure. 
  
VI.​The International and Moral Imperative 
  
Nigeria’s crisis of unlawful killings is not merely a domestic tragedy; it is a violation of binding international obligations and an assault on our collective humanity. As a member of the international community, Nigeria has voluntarily acceded to several treaties that impose clear duties on the State to respect, protect, and fulfil the right to life. 
  
Under Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, “Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.” Article 5 further reinforces the obligation to protect citizens from inhuman or degrading treatment. The ECOWAS Court has consistently held that Nigeria’s failure to prevent or punish foreseeable killings violates these provisions — as affirmed in Afolalu v. Nigeria (2014) and Kwasu v. Nigeria (2017). 
  
Similarly, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Nigeria is a party, proclaims that “Every human being has the inherent right to life, and this right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” This is not a passive duty. It requires the State to take positive, preventive, and remedial action to safeguard life against both state and non-state actors. 
  
Furthermore, the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which Nigeria is also bound, obliges States to prevent and punish acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Persistent and targeted killings of Christians, Muslims, farmers, and ethnic minorities under the government’s watch — if unchecked — may rise to the threshold of state complicity under international law. 
  
Failure to prevent or punish systematic killings amounts not only to a breach of treaty obligations but to moral bankruptcy. When a government allows its citizens to be massacred without consequence, it ceases to be a government of law; it becomes an accomplice in injustice. 
  
Nigeria cannot seek moral authority in Africa or the world while violating the sacred right to life at home. To rebuild legitimacy, the State must act decisively: investigate every mass killing, prosecute perpetrators — whether armed groups or complicit officials — and provide reparation to victims. International law is clear: silence in the face of atrocity is complicity. 
  
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Zongo v. Burkina Faso underscores that government inaction against targeted killings, especially of investigative journalists, constitutes direct complicity in violations of human rights. This provides a clear legal and moral precedent: failing to investigate unlawful killings is itself a human rights violation. 
  
The time has come for Nigerians to rise as one people and reclaim the moral and constitutional high ground. Section 14(2)(a) of our Constitution states that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government derives all its powers and authority.” If sovereignty resides in the people, then the people have a sacred duty to demand accountability from those who exercise power in their name. 
  
Our call is not for rebellion, but for constitutional resistance — a peaceful, lawful, and organized movement to compel the government to uphold its duty under Sections 14(2)(b) and 33(1). The right to life is not negotiable. It cannot be subordinated to politics, profit, or privilege. 
  
We must therefore insist on the following actions: 
  
Every life lost to terrorism, herder-farmer conflict, or police brutality must be investigated with equal seriousness. There can be no hierarchy of victims in a just nation. 
  
2.​Immediate prosecution of arrested terrorists and killer suspects. 
  
The era of “catch and release” must end. Governors must instruct their Attorneys-General to prosecute terrorism cases diligently, while the Nigerian Bar Association must discipline those who neglect this constitutional duty. 
  
When citizens are compelled to pay ransom due to government failure, justice demands restitution. The State must acknowledge its dereliction and refund such payments while intensifying action against kidnappers. 
  
. 
  
The recurring violence between farmers and herders will not end until open grazing is prohibited nationwide. The government must enforce existing laws and deploy modern ranching systems to secure both agriculture and national peace. 
  
5.​Reorientation of national defence policy toward citizen protection. 
  
The Nigerian military and security forces must re-prioritize their mission — from guarding the privileged few to defending every Nigerian life, regardless of class, faith, or region. National security must mean human security. 
  
This is the hour for national mobilization. Citizens must speak with one voice, across faiths and ethnicities, to say Enough is Enough. No government will act unless compelled by a united and vigilant people. As history teaches, “a people united cannot be defeated.” 
  
  
The persistence of unlawful killings in Nigeria is not inevitable; it is a choice — a choice made by leaders who have betrayed their oath of office and abandoned their people to despair. But it can be reversed. The Constitution remains our covenant, and within its words lies the promise of renewal. 
  
We must remind those in power that Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution is not a slogan — it is a binding command: “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” Any government that fails in that duty loses its moral and constitutional legitimacy. 
  
Let us, therefore, resolve to defend life as sacred, equal, and inviolable — whether it belongs to the rich or the poor, the farmer or the judge, the Christian, the Muslim, or the traditional worshipper. No Nigerian should die simply because the State failed to act. 
  
Our demand is simple but profound: Protect every life, prosecute every killer, and compensate every victim. That is the meaning of justice. That is the measure of a civilized nation. 
  
And as the struggles of history remind us — from Vietnam to South Africa — a people united in conscience and conviction cannot be defeated by the most powerful army. Let this be our creed, our cause, and our covenant as we reclaim Nigeria from fear and restore it to freedom, dignity, and peace. 
17