With numerous convictions on terrorism funding that have taken place in Nigeria recently, the viability of the strategy that the country is employing to counter Boko Haram violence and other forms of extremism has once again become the topic of a debate. In July 2025, 44 cases of prison sentences of 10 to 30 years with forced labour were pronounced on people who had finished their terrorism funding tasks and the total amount of sentences pronounced on terror financing related issues since trials recommenced was 785. Although these sentences show that there is a renewed determination to destroy terror networks, the words reveal some serious issues on legal protection, international observation, and approach to long-term security.
The Scale and Context of Nigeria’s Counterterrorism Trials
A Resumption of Prosecutions After Years of Delay
Such confessions were obtained in the Detention Center of Kainji where 54 accused were submitted to four specially created civilian Courts. The wave was the first significant restart of the terrorism trials after a period of seven years where over 1, 000 suspects were in pre-trial detention. The decision by the government to resume prosecutions signals the need to work through this backlog and show that something is being done on violent extremism.
Terms of 10 to 30 years of forced labor cannot be taken as metaphoric since it is an indication of the seriousness with which the Nigerian government takes the funding of terrorism. In the words of Abu Michael who is the spokesman of the National Counter Terrorism Centre, “These verdicts send a strong message of deterrence and demonstrate the resolve of our justice system to ensure those involved in terrorism face the full weight of the law.” This hard language however causes the method of delivering justice to come under scrutiny.
Boko Haram’s Enduring Threat to National Security
Boko Haram has been active in killing more than 40,000 people and displacing approximately 2 million people since the year 2009 in countries including Nigeria and its neighbors. One of the reasons it has remained resilient is well-developed and decentralized network structures financing and based on increasingly digital extortion, kidnapping for ransom, smuggling, etc. The fight against these sources of funding is not a choice but a national security strategy of Nigeria.
2025 has seen continued attacks in Borno and Yobe states, with security forces struggling to contain factions that exploit porous borders and local grievances. Disrupting financing is therefore seen as a crucial pressure point in weakening operational capacity and recruitment.
Judicial Process and Human Rights Concerns
Transparency and the Challenge of Due Process
Nigerian authorities believe that the Kainji trials are valid and above board, noting the utilization of civilian judges in a space controlled by the military to achieve a balance between the roles of security and civilian oversight. The concerns involved have all been stressing on the importance of fair trial standards by the office of the Attorney General.
Nevertheless, human rights monitors remark unresolved inequalities. Most of the accused persons have been in custody over a number of years without provision of legal representation and trial in court. The simple fact that there are more than 1,000 people effectively detained in warehousing situations when the authority is not looking individually at those people is problematic.
This conflict between the demands of security and the responsibility towards human rights is the core of the problem of counter terrorism in Nigeria. Without plausible protection, bulk exoneration threatens to look more like penal convenience not than justice.
Range of Offenses and Legal Innovation
In these trials charges are not restricted to financing but active involvement in attacks, kidnappings and even destruction of property. Others convicted in the past have received death sentences and life imprisonment perhaps to indicate the serious nature of certain crimes like assaults on schools and places of worship.
One of the most important legal developments of the last few years has been the choice to criminalize sexual and gender-based violence as terrorism crimes. This change reflects the reality that the groups, such as Boko Haram, are using rape and forced marriage as a weapons of terror and control logistically. Even though this is evolving based on the changing face of the insurgencies, this does come with requiring an advanced investigative capability to obtain credible evidence and guard the victims in the court.
International Scrutiny and Compliance Challenges
FATF Grey Listing and Regulatory Pressure
Nigeria is listed as being on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list, in relation to the lack of combat money laundering and terrorism financing. This label makes foreign investment, bank relations and trade harder and this shows that the financial systems of Nigeria are still prone to exploitation.
The surge in convictions could be read as an effort to satisfy FATF requirements and demonstrate progress. However, FATF and other international stakeholders will look for evidence of systemic reform, not just courtroom statistics. Real progress will depend on closing regulatory gaps, ensuring consistent enforcement, and fostering interagency cooperation to track and prevent illicit financial flows.
The Digital Dimension of Terror Financing
Boko Haram and their associated networks have been using digital means more often to transfer money fast and anonymously. Law enforcers state that they have closed thousands of questionable accounts and prevented fraudulent transactions on mobile money, and point-of-sale platforms. However these measures are usually outstripped by the ingenuity of traffickers who quickly adjust to the changes in the regulations.
What is needed to counter -financing, besides the arrests, is strong digital forensics, trans-border collaboration with neighbors Cameroon and Chad and long-term alliances with financial establishments to define peculiar patterns. The lack of such sophistication may lead to nothing but convictions that merely encourage networks to change their strategies but not destroy them.
Societal Impact and Strategic Implications
The Promise and Risk of Deterrence
The advocates of the mass sentencing contend that it conveys a clear message that terrorism would no longer be allowed and that the people who fund violence would be dealt with with stiff repercussions. In the areas which have been worn out by the attacks on them over years people seek to see a show of force by the state and the state asserting control and being the provider to its people.
However history points out that deterrence alone is weak. Heavy tactics, detention of large numbers of people, and black trials only serve to increase local animosity, reduce confidence in the government, and provide the extremists with recruitment stories. The communities that have already experienced the trauma of violence might get victimized twice in their eyes as they can follow the view of injustice as a group punishment instead of personal responsibility.
Toward Sustainable Counterterrorism Policy
Nigeria’s fight against terrorism financing will succeed only if it combines strong enforcement with legitimacy. That means addressing long-standing failures in the judicial process—delays, overcrowded prisons, lack of legal counsel—and committing to transparent, timely adjudication of cases.
Moreover, tackling financing must be part of a broader approach that includes addressing the root causes of radicalization: poverty, unemployment, local governance failures, and the erosion of traditional authority structures. Without addressing these drivers, any success in courtrooms risks being undermined in villages and urban neighborhoods.
As Nigeria processes hundreds of remaining terrorism-related cases in 2025 and beyond, it faces a defining test. Can it use these prosecutions to signal a new era of accountability, or will they become another chapter in a cycle of violence, mistrust, and partial reforms? The answers will shape the country’s security trajectory and its standing with international partners who expect not only results, but fairness and respect for fundamental rights.