By Passman Akpos
In recent days, outrage has resurfaced over a controversial legislative proposal before Nigeria’s National Assembly — a bill which seeks to give “repentant terrorists” access to foreign scholarships, while many youth who have played by the rules remain unsupported at home.
The bill in question, introduced in the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and sponsored by Ibrahim Geidam (Yobe East), aims to establish a “National Agency for the Education, Rehabilitation, De-radicalisation and Integration of Repentant Insurgents in Nigeria”, funded via existing education funds. It expressly provides that repentant Boko Haram members (referred to in the bill as “ex-agitators”) could access foreign education scholarships by tapping into government-funded bodies such as the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) and the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC).
At the same time, many law-abiding Nigerian youths — including thousands from impoverished backgrounds or regions ravaged by conflict — say they remain without access to meaningful scholarship opportunities, worsened by internal displacement, school infrastructure collapse and limited resources.
The Public Outcry
Civil society organisations such as Socio‑Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) have been scathing. They argue the bill “erodes justice and makes a mockery of the suffering of victims” of terrorism and insurgency. In its open letter to Senate President Ahmad Ibrahim Lawan, SERAP states:
> “By calling Boko Haram members ‘ex-agitators’, the bill mocks the victims… and is a blatant affront to victims’ dignity.” They lament that while “over 13 million Nigerian children of school age are roaming our streets”, this scheme would prioritise the education of former terrorists.
Moral & Policy Questions
Several hard questions are raised by the proposal:
Does rewarding repentant terrorists with foreign scholarships create a perverse incentive? Critics argue it signals that committing atrocities, then “repenting”, can lead to privileges unavailable to many law-abiding citizens.
How does this sit with justice for victims? The bill covers those who surrendered or were rehabilitated, but many victims of insurgency feel sidelined by arrangements that seem to prioritise former perpetrators.
What about fairness to disadvantaged youths? If funds are diverted to such a programme, does that reduce the pool of support for the many students waiting desperately for scholarships, especially in conflict-affected regions?
What precedent does this set for reintegration policy? Accepting repentant terrorists is valid and important in a deradicalisation strategy—but the form such induction takes (foreign study vs local support) matters greatly, both symbolically and financially.
Is it morally acceptable? For many Nigerians the answer is a resounding no — the idea that “become a terrorist, kill many, then repent and get a plane ticket abroad” is deeply troubling.
What’s Next
The bill has only passed first reading in the Senate at the time of writing. SERAP and other stakeholders are calling for immediate withdrawal of the proposal, or at minimum a major re-draft to prioritise victims and youth victims of insurgency and displacement. Where it stands:
If it proceeds, there will likely be legal challenges on constitutional grounds (equal rights, value-for-money, victims’ rights) as flagged by SERAP.
Policymakers will need to reconcile the dual objectives of national security (rehabilitation of ex-insurgents) and educational equity for vulnerable youth.
Public opinion appears strongly against the perceived “reward” aspect of the bill, so political fallout may be significant.
The pathway to success should ideally be merit, hard work and opportunity. But this bill raises the concern that it might instead look like: inflict terror, surrender, then gain benefits. That perception — whether intended or unintended — is profoundly unsettling for many Nigerians.The questions you posed — about fairness to law-abiding youths, about the morality of prioritising repentant terrorists for foreign study — are exactly the questions now vibrating through public discourse.
