LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS FOR COMBATING TERRORISM IN NIGERIA: A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

Abstract

Terrorism, unarguably characterized by unpredictable and unprecedented threats and violence, is not a modern phenomenon. However, there is no globally accepted, single cum encompassing definition of terrorism, albeit recognized as a crime in international law and legal statutes in all United Nations member States, including the chosen focal states in this article: Nigeria, Kenya and the United Kingdom. Terrorism has regrettably remained a recurring challenge to international legal order, peace and stability. International community’s response, through the United Nations’ system has led to the establishment of a regime of terrorism-related universal treaties, conventions and of course a series of Security Council resolutions relating to terrorism, many of whom were adopted under the authority of Chapter vii of the United Nations Charter, amongst others. These instruments undeniably do not create an integrated system and are full of major gaps/lacunae. This article examined the legal framework for the fight against terrorism in Nigeria, with special focus on the challenges, prospects and lessons. It found that there are insufficient laws on the fight against terrorism in Nigeria and the institutions have not beeneffective in this regard. It also made a comparative analysis of the counter terrorism legal framework of Nigeria, Kenya and the United Kingdom respectively. It observed that Kenya has witnessed many terrorist attacks in recent years, an indication that the country is still grappling with how best to respond to terrorism. The United Kingdom on the other hand has effective laws and technology to detect imminent terrorist attacks and respond to them accordingly. Thus, the essence of the comparison is to divulge the shortfalls, if any, in the Nigeria legal framework and the extent to which the Kenya and United Kingdom best practices could be adopted in containing terrorism.