The State Security Service (SSS) has vowed to appeal the life sentences imposed on two senior Ansaru commanders, arguing that only the death penalty fits the gravity of their crimes. The planned appeal brings into focus the widening gap between Nigeria’s legal framework, which retains capital punishment, and the state’s increasingly restrained practice of enforcing it.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that the terror commanders — Mahmud Usman (also known as Abu Bara’a, Abbass or Mukhar) and Abubakar Abba (also known as Mahmud al-Nigeri or Malam Mamuda) — were arrested in an intelligence-led, multi-agency operation conducted between May and July 2025.
|
|
The National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, announced their arrests in August of the same year. Mr Ribadu described Mr Usman as “Emir” of Ansaru, a first breakaway faction of Boko Haram with ties to al-Qaeda. He said the suspect was the overall coordinator of the group’s sleeper cells across Nigeria and mastermind of several kidnappings and terrorist financing operations.
The NSA described Mr Mamuda as the terror commander’s deputy who headed the notorious “Mahmudawa” faction of Ansaru based in and around Kainji National Park. According to him, Mr Mamuda trained in Libya under foreign jihadist instructors.
|
|
|
|---|
In an exclusive report, this newspaper profiled the two terror commanders, revealing that while Mr Usman was a former inmate, Mr Mamuda led the notorious Mamuda group, which terrorised communities around the Kainji forest and financed its operations through illegal logging and levies imposed on farmers, fishermen, and other rural residents.
When they were first arraigned in 2025, prosecutors filed a 32-count terrorism charge against them. Initially, one defendant pleaded guilty to only one count (illegal mining) while denying the remaining charges, and the other pleaded not guilty to all 32 counts.
The proceedings appeared headed for a full trial until both defendants later reversed their positions and pleaded guilty to the charges. Their guilty pleas spared the prosecution the burden of calling witnesses and presenting extensive evidence, allowing the court to convict them and impose life imprisonment.
Ordinarily, such an outcome would have marked the conclusion of one of Nigeria’s most high-profile terrorism prosecutions. But with the SSS’s push for their death sentence, it is expected to open another legal battle.
Why the SSS is appealing
Rather than celebrating the convictions, the SSS announced that it would challenge the sentences, arguing that life imprisonment was inadequate given the gravity of the offences.
Its position reflects the agency’s view that senior terrorist commanders who orchestrated killings, kidnappings and attacks should receive the maximum punishment available under Nigerian law.
From a prosecutorial standpoint, the appeal means two things. First, it reinforces the government’s intention to demonstrate zero tolerance for terrorism, particularly at a time when insurgent groups continue to threaten communities across Nigeria.
Second, it signals that the SSS believes punishment should correspond not only to a conviction but also to the scale of harm allegedly caused by those convicted.
A senior SSS official told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) and other journalists that both convicts were considering pleading guilty to the charges pressed against them, but changed their minds shortly after the abduction of pupils and teachers in Oriire LGA in Oyo State.
The abduction, according to President Tinubu, was carried out by Ansaru terrorists. Mr Tinubu disclosed this following the release of the captives who spent 56 days in captivity. The Minister of Defence, Christopher Musa, had hinted that the pupils were kidnapped to force the government to release terror commanders in military custody.
Essentially, according to the government, the two terrorist leaders initially wanted to plead guilty but changed their minds when their colleagues kidnapped pupils and teachers in Oyo State and demanded the two men’s release as a condition for freeing the kidnapped victims.
However, after the government secured the release of the Oyo victims, the two men saw they no longer had any leverage and thus returned to pleading guilty, leading to Monday’s sentencing.
“For the nearly 60 days the kidnappers held on to the pupils and teachers of Oriire, the Ansaru commanders in our custody changed,” the SSS official told NAN. “One of the top conditions the abductors gave was the unconditional release of these same Ansaru commanders in exchange for the Oriire kidnap victims.”
“Allowing the two terror commanders to walk away with life sentences will not serve the cause of justice for the two Oriire teachers beheaded by their abductors,” the official added. “The reason the terrorists beheaded the two Oriire teachers was to put pressure on the government to release these two Ansaru commanders.
“It, therefore, wouldn’t be fair to see two men beheaded and their families are made to live with the losses without adequately bringing the culprits to book,” the official said.
Nigeria rarely carries out executions
However, the SSS’s planned appeal collides with a broader reality.
Although Nigerian law retains capital punishment for offences such as murder, treason and certain terrorism-related crimes under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, executions have become rare.
Hundreds of inmates remain on death row, many for decades, while governors seldom sign execution warrants. Although Nigeria has never formally declared a moratorium on executions, Amnesty International has urged the government to establish one, noting that executions have become increasingly rare even as courts continue to impose death sentences.
Consequently, even if an appellate court were to impose a death sentence on the two Ansaru commanders, there is no guarantee that the sentence would ever be carried out.
Why successive governments have become cautious
Nigeria’s cautious approach is rooted in both domestic and international considerations.
Domestically, concerns persist over weaknesses in the criminal justice system, including prolonged trials, procedural delays and the possibility of wrongful convictions. According to Amnesty, these concerns were highlighted by the Presidential Commission on the Reform of the Administration of Justice, which questioned whether executions should continue while systemic flaws remained unresolved.
Internationally, Nigeria has faced sustained pressure from human rights bodies to move away from capital punishment. In its concluding observations on Nigeria’s periodic report, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights urged the country to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopt an official moratorium on executions, and align its death penalty laws with international standards.
Similarly, during Nigeria’s fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council in 2024, several member states recommended that Nigeria ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and introduce a moratorium on executions as a first step towards abolition.
Although the country has not abolished the death penalty and remains legally entitled to impose it, repeated recommendations from international human rights mechanisms have encouraged restraint and greater reliance on life imprisonment.
The terrorism exception
Terrorism, however, presents a unique challenge.
Unlike ordinary criminal offences, terrorist attacks often involve mass casualties, widespread displacement and prolonged psychological trauma. Security agencies argue that the leaders of violent extremist organisations occupy a different category of offenders because they deliberately target civilians and threaten national security.
READ ALSO: UPDATED: Court jails two Ansaru commanders for life over terrorism
This explains why the SSS appears determined to pursue capital punishment despite Nigeria’s broader reluctance to execute convicted prisoners.
The agency’s appeal may therefore be less about these two individuals alone and more about establishing judicial precedent for future terrorism prosecutions.
The defendants’ decision to change their pleas also raises interesting legal questions.
Guilty pleas generally conserve judicial resources, shorten trials and may demonstrate acceptance of responsibility. Courts sometimes regard such pleas as mitigating factors during sentencing.
However, prosecutors may contend that the seriousness of terrorism offences outweighs any mitigating value arising from a late guilty plea—particularly where the alleged conduct resulted in multiple deaths or widespread violence.
The appellate court may ultimately have to balance these competing considerations.
What the appeal could mean
Beyond the fate of the two convicted Ansaru commanders, the appeal could shape Nigeria’s counterterrorism jurisprudence in several ways.
If the appellate court upholds the life sentences, it may reinforce the growing judicial preference for life imprisonment even in the most serious terrorism cases.
If it substitutes the sentences with death penalties, the decision would reaffirm that Nigerian courts remain willing to impose the ultimate punishment against convicted terrorists. Whether such sentences would actually be implemented would remain a separate question.
