Analytical Assessment of the Effectiveness of Nigerian Courts in Prosecuting Terrorism Cases

Effective prosecution of terrorism offences is a critical component of counter-terrorism strategy, and analytically assessing the performance of Nigerian courts in achieving terrorism convictions provides important evidence for judicial capacity investment and prosecutorial reform. This study analytically assessed federal court performance in terrorism prosecution from 2016 to 2023, focusing on cases filed under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and its predecessor legislation in the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal. A legal analytical and empirical methodology was employed, combining systematic analysis of 120 publicly available terrorism case decisions, structured interviews with 15 terrorism prosecutors and 8 defence lawyers, and documentary analysis of judicial administration reports. Case analysis revealed a conviction rate of 44.3 percent for completed cases, an acquittal rate of 18.3 percent, and a discontinuation or no-progress rate of 37.4 percent. Mean time to verdict for completed cases was 4.2 years. Evidence analysis showed that 68 percent of convictions relied primarily on confession evidence, raising international fair trial standard concerns. Material support for terrorism charges showed significantly lower conviction rates (31.2 percent) than direct participation charges (61.4 percent). Judicial technical knowledge deficits in digital evidence analysis and international terrorism law were identified in 55 percent of reviewed decisions. The study recommends terrorism prosecution specialisation, mandatory digital evidence training for terrorism judges, and confession evidence corroboration requirements as priority reform actions.

Keywords: terrorism prosecution, Nigerian courts, counter-terrorism, judicial effectiveness, terrorism law