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)
