By Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq.

The legal profession is rightly celebrated as the mother of all professions, a noble vocation that demands not only profound intellectual engagement but also a steadfast commitment to decorum, exemplary character, and noble conduct. The mantra instilled in us during our formative years in law school—“fit and proper”—serves as a perennial reminder of the standards we are sworn to uphold. As legal practitioners, we are not merely advocates; we are the custodians of justice, the stewards of integrity, and the torchbearers of the rule of law. Judges, particularly the Chief Judge of a state, occupy a position of unparalleled importance in this judicial ecosystem, serving not only as administrative and judicial leaders but also as symbols of impartiality, wisdom, and fairness.

There is, however, a delicate boundary between constructive critique and baseless disparagement. It is imperative to recognize that unwarranted attacks on judicial figures, especially those in high-ranking positions, not only demean the individual but also risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary as an institution.

Recently, in Akure, the capital of Ondo State, the Chief Judge dutifully fulfilled his statutory responsibilities amidst the ongoing electoral processes and formation of Local Government Councils. Acting upon a formal notification from the Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission (ODIEC), the Chief Judge constituted and administered the oath of office to the Chairman and members of the Local Government Election Petition Tribunal. This act, which exemplified both judicial propriety and patriotic commitment, was regrettably met with unwarranted criticism.

One Adebayo Solagbade, Esq., a counsel whose employment status remains somewhat unclear, sought to trivialize the Chief Judge’s statutory role by invoking an outdated and repealed 21-year-old law that had been duly amended. This attempt, driven by either ignorance or an ill-conceived agenda, not only reflected a lack of legal depth but also betrayed a troubling disregard for professional courtesy and respect.

What is most disheartening and worrisome is the brazenness with which this counsel approached the matter. For how long will we continue to condone intellectual rascality under the guise of public advocacy? How do we justify actions that seek to belittle the statutory and patriotic duties of a Chief Judge, reducing them to the subject of public ridicule? Despite the clear and detailed clarifications provided by the Attorney General of Ondo State and Mrs. Ajanaku, Esq., the Chief Registrar of the High Court, aimed at dispelling misinformation and fostering public trust, the lawyer remained obstinate in his erroneous assertions. His insistence that every legislative amendment must undergo public hearings revealed a profound misunderstanding of legislative processes, particularly in instances where the amendments addresses narrow or technical issues of law.

As a senior legal practitioner in Ondo State and a proud member of the global legal community, I find these developments deeply troubling. My investigation revealed that the law cited by the junior counsel had been duly amended and the new amendment was signed into law by the Governor of Ondo State last year. This fact would have been readily apparent had the counsel exercised due diligence by conducting proper research or seek clarification from appropriate authorities such as the High Court or the Ministry of Justice. Such an inquiry could have been as simple as submitting a formal letter of inquiry to the relevant office. It would have been a different matter entirely if his requests had been ignored, but that was not the case here.

This incident raises an important question: how should lawyers engage in the critique of judicial figures, particularly those in positions as revered as that of a Chief Judge? The answer lies in a steadfast commitment to truth, thorough research, and objective analysis. The more we desecrate the sanctity of the bench, the more we erode the public’s trust in the judiciary. Recklessly disseminating unfounded accusations, particularly on public platforms like social media, not only tarnishes the individual targeted but also brings disrepute to the legal profession as a whole.

This conduct constitutes a blatant affront to the sanctity of our profession and must not be allowed to fester. In my considered opinion, if the counsel in question reconsiders his position, the most honorable course of action would be to tender a public apology to the Chief Judge and the Nigerian Bar Association at large. Such a gesture would not only be appropriate but also necessary for restoring the dignity of the profession.

Should he fail to issue such an apology, the Attorney General of Ondo State, as the leader of the bar in the state, should initiate a formal complaint against the erring lawyer. Additionally, the local branch of the Nigerian Bar Association must act decisively to uphold the profession’s ethical standards. Should these measures prove inadequate, I am prepared to escalate the matter by filing a petition with the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) to address this act of infamous conduct.

Preserving sanity, decorum, and respect within the legal profession is not a mere aspiration; it is an absolute necessity. As lawyers, we hold a privileged position in society, and with that privilege comes the responsibility to uphold the dignity and sanctity of our judicial institutions. Baseless attacks on judicial figures, especially those occupying esteemed offices like the Chief Judge, cause irreparable damage to public trust in our justice system.

It is incumbent upon us to foster a culture of respect, integrity, and constructive engagement. By doing so, we not only honor the core values of the legal profession but also contribute to strengthening the pillars of justice and fairness in our society. Let us rise above pettiness and embrace our roles as paragons of professionalism, ensuring that our actions consistently reflect the noble ideals that define our esteemed vocation.

Olajengbesi, Abuja-Based Legal Practitioner, is Managing Partner at Law Corridor.

By Sylvester Udemezue

(1). The recent declaration by the Government of Ogun State of Nigeria expressing its commitment to enforcing death penalty for heinous crimes, including ritual killings, kidnapping, and cultism, has reopened the discussions on continued propriety and morality of imposing and or enforcing the death penalty in Nigeria. While some hold the view that the death penalty has proven ineffective in deterring crime, others believe otherwise arguing that retention of the death penalty is necessary in the interest of justice and public safety.

(2). The Ogun State Government had on Saturday, 18 January 2025, expressed its commitment to addressing the rise in heinous crimes (such as ritual killings, kidnapping, and cultism) by considering the signing of Death Warrants for condemned criminals. The State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Oluwasina Ogungbade (SAN), who disclosed the State’s stand, emphasized the government’s resolve to uphold the law and deter criminal activities by implementing appropriate penalties for offenders. He highlighted the concerning increase in violent crimes and assured that the state government was prepared to fulfil its constitutional duty to sign Death Warrants where necessary, following thorough and fair judicial processes. The Hon Attorney General stressed the need for a societal shift in values, criticizing the growing trend of families shielding criminals instead of supporting justice. He called for a return to traditional African principles that emphasize accountability and punishment for wrongdoing. [See: ‘Ogun State To Enforce Death Penalty For Heinous Crimes, Says Attorney General’! Punch; 18 January 2025]

(3). However, in a statement released on 21 January 2025, appealing to the Ogun State Government to reconsider its stance on the matter, a prominent legal practitioner and former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Garki Branch in the FCT Abuja, Nigeria, Mr Obioma Ezenwobodo, argued that the death penalty has been shown to not be an effective deterrent to crime. According to him, there is no proof that imposing or enforcing the death penalty can reduce crime rates. He argued that some of the countries that have abolished the death penalty have hardly experienced an increase in crime rates. Mr Ezenwobodo suggested “life imprisonment” as a more effective and humane alternative to the death penalty, in that, as he said, life sentence allows for rehabilitation and serves as a deterrent to potential criminals. Finally, Mr Ezenwobodo held the view that the death penalty violates the right to life, as enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights treaties. Overall, Mr Ezenwobodo pleaded with the Ogun State Government to opt for a more effective or humane solution to crime arguing that alternative sentencing options should be considered instead of enforcing the death penalty. [See: ‘Death Penalty Won’t End Crime” – Ex-NBA Garki Chair Ezenwobodo Urges Ogun AG To Opt for Life Imprisonment’ TheNigeriaLawyer; 21 January 2025]

(4) The present piece is a respectful riposte, in which I humbly argue that although Mr Ezenwobodo’s argument and advocacy are not without some merits, Mr Ezenwobodo appears to have missed the overall essence of or the main rational for continued retention and enforcement of the death penalty in a country as Nigeria. Respectfully considering subsisting arguments against retention of the death penalty as not cogent enough, I humbly put forward the following FOURTEEN REASONS in support of my humble argument in favour of continued retention and timely enforcement of the death penalty in Nigeria:

(𝗮) Deterrence. Learned friend Mr Ezenwobodo has hardly provided any empirical proof to support his claim that death is not a deterrence to crime. Contrary to my learned friend’s stance, experience has shown that no criminal genuinely ever wants to die. Hence, the fear of death is inherent in every criminal, however hardened or recidivist the criminal is. With due respect, this provides some proof that death deters crime, to some extent. Again, one may raise questions as to why criminals are known to run for dear lives after crime, from the scene of the crime? If criminals are not afraid of death, then why do they deploy all and any means possible, and resort to all tactics available, to escape the scene of their crime or to escape being caught? Why do even those who know they have wilfully killed, still plead ‘not guilty’ upon arraignment, and thereafter proceed to provide defences aimed to escape the mandatory punishment of death?

Why do most convicted murderers refrain from snuffing life out of themselves, by themselves, instead of waiting for the hangman, if not because they still hope that some miracles might happen that would save their lives? If anything, it’s the State’s delay or failure to promptly enforce/execute the death sentence against convicted murderers and other capital criminals, that sometimes embolden such criminals to continue in the hope that even if they’re convicted and kept awaiting execution, punishment will sure become delayed or commuted or even shelved in its entirety through, say, State Pardon or, as experience has shown of Nigeria, an artificial jailbreak may happen allowing them to escape punishment. Thus, imposition and prompt enforcement of the death penalty for capital offenders can serve as an effective deterrent to potential offenders, causing some others to think twice before committing such heinous crimes.

It’s therefore wrong for one to think otherwise merely because capital offences are still being committed in the society. The REALITY is that nothing can stop or stamp out crimes completely. Nothing, no matter how hard the government, society or anyone tries. All efforts by law enforcement agencies, the State and the people, are aimed in REALITY only to REDUCE or MINIMIZE and not to absolutely stamp out crime. Mr Ezenwobodo says enforcing the death penalty doesn’t deter crime, and I ask Mr Ezenwobodo, “Does non-imposition and/or non-enforcement of the death penalty deter crime?” Below is part of what a former Attorney- General of Rivers State, respected learned senior Sir Boms Worgu, has got to say in his initial reaction to Mr Ezenwobodo’s “end the death penalty” advocacy:

“To say Death Penalty will NOT end Crime, strongly suggests [that Mr Ezenwobodo] knows what will. Reading it, I saw no prescription for what will end it. Crime can never be ended. Impossible. The purpose of punishment, even capital one, or a simple fine, is NOT to end crime: it is to provide justice to victims and society. There are over 200 countries in the world and you say one hundred + have abolished it. It means nothing, even if all but us have abolished it. How, for example, we want that man who remorselessly, pridefully, was parading his girlfriend’s wilfully-severed head, to live, in the name of human dignity or human human rights, beats me. Our colleague [Mr Ezenwobodo] cited a Judicial authority about pain or is it torture in execution in aid of his advocacy to end executions. Well, under the Convention against Torture [CAT], torture or pain, accompanying lawful execution is not regarded as to be prohibited. Finally, no amount of economic well being for citizens can end crime. Let us be realistic. The AG and his Gov should be commended and urged to Walk their Talk.”

(𝗯). Mr Ezenwobodo argued that it’s a part of the duty of the State to secure citizens’ lives and that enforcing the death penalty violates citizens’ constitutional right to life. However, Mr Ezenwobodo forgot that convicted murderers and other capital offenders, by virtue of the death sentence imposed upon them by the court of law, are no longer entitled to such rights. The extant law is that, “in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty”, a person may be denied some constitutional rights otherwise available to them. See Section 35(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

This is why Section 33(1) of the Constitution which guarantees every person’s right to life nevertheless provides that a person may be deprived intentionally of his life “in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty
in Nigeria.” Now, which human rights violation was Mr Ezenwobodo talking about when he said that death penalty imposed or enforced against a convicted capital criminal is a violation of right? The law in Nigeria is that a person who is convicted and sentenced to death has lost the legal right to live. Hence enforcement of such sentence is not a violation of his right but enforcement of the rule of law.

(𝗰). In his advocacy, Mr Ezenwobodo appeared to have completely forgotten that one of the primary reasons for retention of the death penalty in Nigeria is punishment – i.e., to proportionately punish capital crimes – and this reason is much more important than the deterrence angle.

(𝗱). It is a divine rule, in line with natural law, apart from being the extant law in Nigeria, that those who are found to have wilfully and unlawfully killed fellow human beings deserve themselves to be lawfully killed as a just and proportionate (commensurate) reward for their own heinous sins. Hence, Mr Ezenwobodo should have considered whether preaching against enforcement of the death penalty (for convicted murderers and other capital offenders) wouldn’t be viewed as an unjust, passive support for or encouragement of such heinous crimes.

(𝗲). State execution of convicted capital offenders absolutely eliminates the possibility of the convicts committing further crimes or of escaping from prison. Thus, one other major reason for state execution/enforcement of the death sentence (and this is also among the necessary reasons such state execution is a valuable component of any effective public safety strategy) is that state execution of duly convicted murderers and capital offenders has the effect of absolutely guaranteeing public safety by ensuring that such convicted predators and murderers will never, ever again have the opportunity to harm other persons in society.

Mr Ezenwobodo’s advocacy for the “life sentence” as a “humane” alternative to the death penalty fails to address the question whether life sentence guarantee that such convicted predators wouldn’t kill again, even from inside the prison, and whether it is not more reasonable to silent them permanently so that society can be absolutely free of the menace of such convicted murderers. Although experience throughout history has shown that crimes can never completely be ended, it’s obvious that as far as those caught, tried, found guilty and handed the death sentence (for capital offences) are concerned, enforcing the death sentence by killing them absolutely ensures public safety by preventing affected persons from ever harming others again.

(𝗳). State Obligation! Enforcement of the death sentence is not a matter of choice for the State; the State has a legal duty, obligation to ensure such sentences for convicted murderers (who have by their conviction forfeited their right to live) are promptly executed. It’s a duty imposed by law although under the law too, the State has a discretion to consider administering State Pardon to anyone concerned with or convicted of a crime by a court of law. See Section 175 and 212 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. However, it’s respectfully submitted that exercising the power of pardon in favour of duly convicted murderers and other capital offenders has the potency of emboldening such recidivists and encouraging crime generally. It’s therefore humbly advised that the Constitutional discretionary power of administering State Pardon should be exercised cautiously, prudently and sparingly, only in genuinely deserving situations that clearly and especially advance the public interest.

(𝗴). Justice and Retribution! The death penalty to an extent provides some sense of justice and retribution for the victims of such heinous crimes and their families, ensuring that the perpetrators pay the ultimate price for their crime.

(𝗵). Enforcement of the death penalty saves cost. Enforcement of the death penalty is more cost-effective than administering the life imprisonment, as the former eliminates the need for lifelong care and incarceration, thereby saving State’s resources to be applied towards meaningful projects for the advancement of society.

(𝗶). The death penalty reflects Nigeria’s moral values and sends a strong message that certain crimes will not be tolerated. This is among the reasons advanced by the Attorney-General of Ogun State in support of the State Government’s resolve to consider enforcement of such sentences.

(𝗷). Apart from the benefit of reducing administration costs and saving state fund, enforcing the death penalty minimizes various risks associated with housing such dangerous criminals in the prison facilities, one of such risks being the possibility of their ESCAPE, which has been highlighted above

(𝗸). Death sentence is a court order binding on all and which must be obeyed by all. The rule of law requires that all court orders must be obeyed by all persons and authorities. This means that orders of competent Courts of law must be obeyed to the letter. Individuals or governments are thus not permitted to disobey any court order. Disobeying an order of a court of law can be dangerous for society; among other negative impacts, such undermines the authority of the court thereby jeopardizing the smooth operation of the rule of law and orderliness in society. This principle was emphasized by Justice Ogundare, JSC in the case of ROSSEK V. A.C.B. LTD. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382 at pages 434-435 E-C, and support by Romer L.J in HADKINSON V. HADKINSON [1952] P. 285 (25 July 1952); (1952) 2 All ER 567 as well as a plethora of other judicial precedents including ADEBAYO V. JOHNSON (1969) 1 All NLR 176; ALADEGBEMI V. FASANMADE (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.81) 129; KOMOLAFE V. OMOLE (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.268) 213. See also the dictum of MUHAMMAD, J.S.C ( Pp. 23-27, paras. E-C ) in OSHIOMHOLE & ANOR V. FGN (2004) LPELR-5188(CA). Thus, delay in enforcement of the death penalty would amount to a disobedience of orders of Court, except in cases where appeals against such sentences are still pending or where there’re genuine public-interest-oriented grounds to support the option of State pardon or commutation.

(𝗹). Mr Ezenwobodo viewed life sentence as a “humane” alternative to the death penalty, but failed to tell us to what extent the convicted murderer or capital offender himself had applied or exercised humanity while perpetrating the heinous crimes. Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? Is it not the most reasonable option, that the same cup with which one has measured for others, should be used in measuring for one? Is substituting liife imprisonment for the death penalty not tantamount to applying different strokes to similar situations? I wholeheartedly endorse Sir Boms Worgu’s analysis: “If you love life and do not want to be killed, then do not WILFULLY kill another under whatever circumstance and then expect the victim’s family tax payers to be feeding and clothing you and maintaining you alive for life in what is known as Life Imprisonment. Doing what? Is that not juju?”

(𝗺). Imposition and timely execution of such death penalty by the State can provide closure for the families of victims, allowing them to move forward with their lives.

(𝗻). Prevailing Public Opinion! Widespread public opinion in many countries, including Nigeria, supports the death penalty as a means of retribution and deterrence. The Government must never lose sight of a very important factor, namely, that the Government is in place to serve the people and not to dance to the tune of nor to serve the interest of convicted murderers, unscrupulous criminal predators and enemies of society. Section 14 (2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 , provides that “sovereignty belongs to the people…from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.” Beside, recalling that, as Section 14 (2)(b) of the Constitution provides,
“the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”, one way of ensuring safety and security for the people and of protecting cultural values, and social property of law-abiding people of Ogun State is to eliminate dangerous criminals in their midst.

(𝗼). THE LESSER EVIL! Since it is obvious that neither retention of the death penalty nor abolition of the death penalty can stamp out crime completely in society, the question that arises is as to how one can make an informed, reasoned choice between two “evils” so to say although Charles Spurgeon had outrightly advocated that “Of two evils, one should choose neither,” which I think could be because no matter what choice one makes in the circumstances – even if one chooses the lesser of the two evils – the REALITY remains that one is still choosing evil. However, in a commentary (by Sylvester Udemezue) published under the headline, ‘Relaxation or Extension of COVID-19 Lockdown Restrictions in Nigeria: Why We Must Choose Between Two Necessary Evils’ 03 May 2020 in the LoyalNigerianLawyer, I considered factors that should guide one’s choice when one is faced with what could be considered to be “two evils.” I wrote:

“Ancient philosophers and writers believed that one should opt for the LESSER evil, when one had difficulties making a decision between two evils. According to them, there is always a higher choice available, so that of the two evils, it’s more reasonable and safer to choose the lesser…. Charles Caleb Colton explain[ed] this in a more complicated way: _”Of two evils, it is perhaps less injurious to society, that good doctrine should be accompanied by a bad life, than that a good life should lend its support to a bad doctrine.” Laura Sebastian [posed the question]: “Is it better to have your life ended by someone who hates you or by someone who loves you?”. The problem with Laura Sebastine’s question is that it fails to answer the earlier question as to who loves us more and who hates us more [since in the end, we still have to die in the hands of each or either of the two]. Besides, the truth remains that there are only two options available for us to choose from; [which means that] either way, there are serious implications.”

Applying this guide to the current scenario, and judging by the Fourteen reasons offered above, I respectfully suggest that retention of the death penalty, if it can be said to be an evil at all, is the lesser of the two evils, being much more in tune with the public interest than with its opposite.

(5). CONCLUSION: While it’s hoped that my great learned friend, Mr Obioma Ezenwobodo would find time to administer further discussions on the foregoing questions and issues (I believe that the debate surrounding the effectiveness, propriety and morality of the death penalty is continuining), I respectfully encourage the Ogun State Government to make haste, wasting NO more time, in confirming and enforcing outstanding death sentences imposed on convicts especially those who are found to have wilfully and unlawfully killed fellow human beings. I repeat with due respect, let no more time be wasted lest the Governor and his Attorney-General be seen as passive supporters of such heinous capital crimes especially those involving the murder of innocent fellow human beings.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Lawyer, Law Teacher, and Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
(a nonaligned, nonprofit public-interest law advocacy Ministry)
08109024556.
[email protected]
(21 JANUARY 2025)

1. 𝘖𝘯 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘺, 30 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 2024, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘊𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 “𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘪 𝘍𝘶𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘢, 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 2025 𝘣𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘝𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘖𝘬𝘰-𝘑𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘰-𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺. 𝘍𝘶𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕1.1 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘺”. 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘧𝘶𝘭, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳.
2. 𝘉𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 109 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘈𝘗𝘐𝘈𝘕𝘓𝘖𝘕𝘎 𝘝 𝘋𝘈𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘎 (2007) (𝘚𝘊): 𝘈𝘎 𝘝 𝘈𝘉𝘜𝘉𝘈𝘒𝘈𝘙 (𝘚𝘊) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘉𝘌𝘎𝘜𝘕𝘋𝘌 𝘝 𝘖𝘕𝘋𝘖 𝘚𝘛𝘈𝘛𝘌 𝘏𝘖𝘈, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 27 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 32-𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘰𝘯 11 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 2023 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘏𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦. 𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 99 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
3. 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦.
4. 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 121 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢, 1999, 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳”
5. 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 11/12/2023 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 27 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰/𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 (𝘪.𝘦., 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵).
6. 𝘖𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘪𝘵’𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭, 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰/𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘕𝘖 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦.
7. 𝘈𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺, 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦 1 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴, 2023, 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥..
8. 𝘜𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘕𝘌𝘊 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 27 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺, 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘵.
9. See: “𝗥𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 (𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟮): 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗢𝗳 𝗔 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗢𝗳 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗢𝗳 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗻 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆” By Sylvester Udemezue, published by TheNigeriaLawyer on 13 May 2024;
10. See also “𝗥𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗢𝗳 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗢𝗳 “𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲”(A Legal Opinion)” -By Sylvester Udemezue, published 02 November 2024 in BarristerNG.
    𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺,
    𝘚𝘺𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘜𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘻𝘶𝘦 (𝘜𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘴)
    08109024556.
    𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳@𝘨𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭.𝘤𝘰𝘮
    (30 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 2024)
    ➖➖➖
    ◾𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗨𝗱𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮:
11. X (Twitter) Handle: https://x.com/udems748043.
12. WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakzzI85q08aQuM1wU21
13. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MrUdems?mibextid=ZbWKwL

By Obioma Ezenwobodo

The recent moves by the Ogun State Government to sign death warrants of condemned inamtes in the State due to rise in violent crimes is a cause for concern. This revelation was made by the the State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr Oluwasina Ogungbade, SAN, after inspecting inmates and facilities at the Correctional Centre, Ibara, Abeokuta, Ogun State on the 17^th January, 2025 and reported in some news media.

The intention of this joinder is to plead with Ogun State Government ably represented by the honourable Attorney General of the State to temper justice with mercy by reconsidering the move as doing so will be inhuman and degrading as the best contemporary practice is to commute death sentence to life imprisonment. This is with the hindsight that death sentence does not abate violent crimes as it is a mere violent retaliation to it. The late Coretta Scott King, wife of Martin Luther King Jr., whose husband and mother-in-law were both assassinate had this to say about death penalty despite being a victim of same:

“An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation, Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.”

Bryan Stevenson, a civil rights lawyer striving to reform the US criminal justice system remarked that the main argument on death penalty is not whether it is right or wrong but whether we deserve to retaliate by exercising the same killing which we condemn. The celebrated rights activists had this to say about death penalty:

“The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question of capital punishment in this country is, do we deserve to kill.”

Internationally, death penalty is deemed to be inhuman, degrading and violation of human dignity. More than 140 countries have abolished it or introduced moratorium on its use thereby indicating that it is not an effective deterrence to crimes but a merely ultimate denial of human dignity. This growing global trend led to various United Nations resolutions aimed at eliminating death penalty. Two notable resolutions of notes are resolution 62/149that called for a worldwide moratorium on executions of death row inmates and resolution A/RES/77/222 that noted that the death penalty is often applied disproportionately to poor people, foreign nationals, and people exercising their human rights.

In Africa, 26 out of the 55 countries have abolished the death penalty while 16 are observing a moratorium on executions. Only 14 countries still retain capital penalty. Chad, our immediate neighbour abolished the death penalty in April 2020 while Ghana just abolished death penalty in July 2023.

In Nigeria, though our legislations are replete with various provisions for death penalties, the court has been courageous enough to declare the method of execution of death row inmates in Nigeria unconstitutional. In the celebrated case of James Ajulu & Ors v. A.G. of Lagos State (Unreported) Suit No. ID/76M/2008, Hon. Justice Olokoba held thus:

“Death by hanging or by firing squad amounts to a violation of the condemned right to dignity of the human person and inhuman and degrading treatment. It is consequently unconstitutional being violation of section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”

What is more? Death penalty forecloses investigation for justice as many death row inmates had been found to be innocent after being sentenced and this could have been brought about by poor investigation procedure, poor/inadequate legal representation or judicial error. Their fate would have been sealed if the worst had happened.

Ogun State, just like other States in the country, is faced with existential surge in violent crimes not purposely due to lack of execution of death penalty but mainly due biting economic meltdown in the country. This economic issue has pushed a great proportion of the citizens to extreme poverty level. Despite the woeful economic situation, the State still owes it to all citizens to protect lives and properties by not just enforcing laws but deploying high-tech security architecture to combat crimes and criminality. Central to all these is the onerous duty of the State to cater for and invest greatly on the welfare needs of the citizens as this will invariably reduce crimes and criminality in the society.

Based on the above assertions, a humble appeal is being made to Ogun State not to embark on the exercise of executing death row inmates but commute their sentence to life imprisonment as this accord with modern and more justified trend. This will protect their dignity and humanities which we all share.

Obioma Ezenwobodo LL.M

Managing Partner Resolution Attorneys &

Executive Director Policy and Legislative Advocacy Network.

[email protected]