Bello El-Rufai, member of the House of Representatives for Kaduna North Federal Constituency, has stirred nationwide debate after publicly questioning what he described as inconsistencies in Nigeria’s justice system over terrorism-related cases.
El-Rufai raised concerns following reports that the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, was sentenced to life imprisonment, while some individuals convicted of terrorism offences, including members of the Boko Haram insurgent group, reportedly received jail terms of about 20 years.
According to the lawmaker, the supposed disparity in sentencing raises serious questions about fairness, proportionality, and the equal application of the law. He queried why cases involving different groups accused of threatening national security appear to attract sharply different punishments, despite all falling under terrorism-related offences.
His remarks, shared publicly, resonated widely and quickly spread across social and traditional media, triggering sharp reactions from various political, ethnic, and civil society groups. While some Nigerians agreed with his position, saying the justice system must be consistent and transparent, others argued that the circumstances, charges, and legal frameworks surrounding each case may differ.
The development has renewed calls for greater openness within Nigeria’s judicial process, with legal analysts urging authorities to clearly explain sentencing decisions in high-profile cases to strengthen public confidence in the rule of law.
As the debate continues, many observers say the controversy underscores a broader concern among Nigerians over perceived inequality before the law and the urgent need for reforms to ensure justice is both fair and seen to be fair.
Abuja Network News