Tag: Death Penalty

Efforts are on by the Nigerian Law Reform Commission (NLRC) to review federal laws to ensure that they meet today’s realities. NLRC Chairman Kefas Magaji speaks on these efforts, the contentious debate over death penalty and other issues in this interview with Eric Ikhilae.

How do you react to the argument that with the National Assembly, your agency is unnecessary?

The society is dynamic, and the law also has to change to meet up with the dynamics of the society, so that the law can remain relevant. Otherwise, the society will be far ahead, and the law trailing behind. So, the essence of the commission is to make sure that we keep track of the development in the society so that our laws can remain updated.

The Laws of the Federation that we have are the Laws of  2004. From 2004 till now, there are some of these laws that have been amended. There are some provisions of existing laws that the courts have pronounced as inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. There are also some laws that the courts have declared inconsistent with one another.

Our duty is to review/revise/reform the laws that fall into these categories. During law review, we remove such laws from the statute books. Also, in a review exercise, you remove all obsolete laws, you merged amendments that have been made so that you can have one single body of law. Law revision exercise also involves correcting typographical errors and changing some identified ambiguous expressions. The essence is to ensure that the law is clear, direct and simple for the understanding of every reader.

In June, this year, the NLRC started  reviewing the Laws of the Federation 2004. How far has the commission gone?

After we obtained the needed presidential approval, we engaged in a three-level approach to executing this project. First, we  engaged consultants, who did the first level of work. What they did was to look at the current Laws of the Federation, the different amendments that have been made and identify where those amendments would apply.

That stage has been concluded. We have constituted a group of experts, who are now reviewing what the first working group did. The idea is to come up with the law that is so precise and the law that presents the law as it is. The group has about one week to round up.

The third stage will involve experts in legal drafting, who will do the actual drafting of these amendments into these areas that have been identified. We will also engage editors, who will do the editorial works, to make sure that there are no errors. The intention is to have the meanings of the laws, as intended by the National Assembly, preserved and protected.

Are you implying that the ongoing revision will not be completed this year?

We were working to achieve that, but it does not appear we will make it. The reason is simple. The challenge we have was with the first working group. It took a while for us to collate all the laws that have been passed by the National Assembly from 2004 till now. We also had problem getting copies of gazetted laws from the Federal Government’s printer. We were at the National Assembly, the Supreme Court and the Federal Government’s Printing Press and other places. So, it took us a long time to  generate these laws.

We found that there were laws that were missing in the 2004 edition. We have tried to include them in this edition, because any law that has not been repealed by the National Assembly, even if it is not included in our body of laws, it is still part of our laws.

So, it was in the process of getting the laws that were missing in the last edition and the ones made by the National Assembly between 2004 and now that we lost a lot of time. That was when we knew that record keeping in this country is not as good as expected.

So, when do you hope to bring this exercise to a close? When do we expect the new Laws of the Federation?

When we receive the work of the group of experts, we hope to, by the first week of December, assemble legal drafters and the editors. We already have the soft copies of all these laws. So, we do not envisage much delay.

We expect that we will conclude this stage by the end of December. And then, we will move to the stage of printing. We are looking forward to early next year for the conclusion of the exercise, all things being equal, including funding.

Don’t you get discouraged that your suggested reforms, which you are expected to submit to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) for transmission to the National Assembly by way of Executive Bills, are mostly unattended to?

We are not discouraged because some of our recommendations are adopted by the National Assembly. We have reformed so many laws in the last five years and some of our reports have been adopted directly by the National Assembly.

There have been cases where after we have submitted reports of our revision of some laws to the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the National Assembly, invites our contributions to its efforts to review similar laws, we simply present the reports we had submitted to the AGF. We have done so in many occasions.

A recent example was when the Speaker of the House of Representatives constituted a committee to review and reform the entire laws of the Federation. I was a member of the committee and we made our reports available to the committee.

It adopted most of the reports and presented them to the National Assembly. Works are still ongoing on the process of the amendment at the National Assembly.

So, the work of the commission is finding full expression in terms of enactment by the National Assembly, even though not through the Attorney-General, but through another avenue. I must say, therefore, that the products of the commission are not wasted.

Would you subscribe to the argument that your commission will perform better if removed from the control of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation?

I don’t really blame the Attorney- General for some of the commission’s problems. The main problem is that the presidential system, which we have adopted, is a marriage of the British parliamentary system and the American system.

In England for instance, the Law Reform Commission, submits its reports to the Attorney-General, who is also a parliamentarian. In that case, when you submit a report to the Attorney-General, it is as good as submitting it to the Parliament, because ministers come from the Parliament.

But, in Nigeria, the Attorney General is not a member of the Parliament. When you submit a report to him, instead of him submitting it to the Parliament, as is the case in England, he submits it to the Executive. That is why we have a little challenge.

However, I am happy to inform you that a process is ongoing to reform our law (the NLRC Act) to make provision for us to re-submit to the National Assembly, reports already submitted to the Attorney-General and on which he (the AGF) did not act within six months.

By this arrangement, we will still remain part of the Executive, reforming laws for this arm of government, but in the event that the Executive fails to utilise the reports we are submitting, and since we are funded with public funds, our report should go to the National Assembly for their adoption, to prevent wastage of resources.

The Bill, to that effect, has been passed by the Senate. What is left is just for the concurrence of the House of Representatives. Once that is passed, it will reduce major challenges.

The law establishing your commission did not limit you to reforming only Federal laws. It allows you to assist states or a group of states that seek your services in such areas. How often do you get such request?

We have not had any state made such request in recent times. This is because some states have constituted similar agencies. So, they allow their reform commissions to do any reform to their laws instead of engaging us.

But from time to time, we invite the states’commissions to assist them through training. We have also proposed laws for states to adopt.

For instance, the Penal Code, which is applicable in the North and the Criminal Code, applicable in the South. There is the Criminal Code, Federal provisions, that apply at the federal level. There is also the Penal Code provisions that apply at the federal level. What we did some years back was to reform the Penal Code and federal provisions. But we did not limit our reform proposals to those federal provisions.

We went through the entire provisions of both the Criminal and Penal Codes and we came up with a model for the states. The idea is that, if the Federal Government adopts our proposals, each state can then  adopt with necessary modifications, to suit its peculiar needs.

We also came up with the idea of sentencing guidelines to guide judges in imposing punishments on convicts. We discovered over a period of study that there were discrepancies in nature of punishments given for similar offences.

This is because the components of the laws that deal with sentencing give the judges some level of discretion. So, before now, this discretion has been used without defined parameters, which resulted in the imposition of various sentences for the same offence.

So, the sentencing guidelines are meant to address this challenge. Although the guidelines were prepared for federal courts, some states have also adopted them.  There are other innovations that we came up with, which states have now adopted.

How much are you involved in the reform of the Electoral Act to allow for an improved electoral process?

It appears the National Assembly is more interested in the reform of the Electoral Act. So, we have not really been contacted to reform the Electoral Act. But, we have been invited to participate in the public hearings conducted for the amendment of the Electoral Act.

There are so many bodies that have interests in the reform of the Electoral Act and they have made so much inputs. We have been invited to participate in the reform processes initiated by the National Assembly and its committees. But we, as a commission, have not undertaken a reform of the Electoral Act.

How do you assess the success of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) since its inception in 2015? What aspects of the Act needs to be tinkered with?

I will say we were part of the making of the ACJA, because we made contributions in many ways, including provisions for plea bargain, non-custodial sentence, among others. Certainly, there have been challenges with the implementation of some aspects of the Act.

We expect that as we keep applying the Act areas that require reforms would become more glaring. We cannot afford to amend every little error detected because of the cost implication. It is better to allow the law to run for about five to eight years before any reform could be made. You know the implementation too is gradual. So, we cannot be in haste in addressing any challenges identified now. Let us apply it for a while.

How do you react to the argument that delay in the justice administration process is more as a result of human problem than inadequacies in existing procedural laws?

I think it is more of human problem. This is because despite various provisions in the ACJA that are meant to address the problem of delay, we still have delay in many of these criminal cases.

The point I am trying to make is that the law has made adequate provision. But, the human element within the process, is where you currently have problem. For me, the problem is not with the law.

Can we then advocate the levying of punitive costs as a way of discouraging lawyers from adopting dilatory tactics?

I do not think so because the problem too is not always from the lawyers. I was into private practice for 23 years before my appointment here.

So, you will agree that I am familiar with what goes on out there. You see, there are times the clients do not pay on time. So, the lawyer will try to delay a while to see if the client is able to pay.

Sometimes, you discover that the client is not responding as fast as you expected. He is not providing the necessary documents and information on time. There are so many other challenges that contribute to delays.

But the bottom-line is that some lawyers do not want some of these cases to be disposed of in good time, because they may not make sufficient money if the cases are promptly determined.

If you want to impose heavy fine as a way of discouraging delays, you will find out that you are punishing the clients, who end up paying such fines. It is only in few cases that lawyers are asked to pay fines.

What is your take on the call for the abolition of death penalty?

You see, for me, I support death penalty. Now, it depends on where you are looking at death penalty. There are people who are serial killers.

For instance, a man has killed two, three, four or five people, and he is sentenced to death. And then, you say no, he should be released. Are those he killed not human beings? For me, he should also be killed if there is sufficient evidence that he has been a serial killer.

There are situations where the conviction is because the judge’s hands are tied. For instance, where a person commits murder and his senses were impaired as at when he did the act, but there was no evidence to show such impairment, either from the prosecution or the defence, on which the judge could rely to acquit him. In such a case, you do not have to kill him/her.

But, there are cases where it is very glaring that the murder was premeditated. A person buys a gun, searches for the person, who is his target, he finds him and then shoots him dead.  And such a person is tried and convicted for murder. Then, you say such a person should not be killed because of human right? For me, I do not believe in such a position.

We should be able to differentiate issues. The different circumstances would dictate whether or not a murder convict deserves mercy. Even some of the religions prescribe that if you kill, you should be killed too.

October 10 is marked as the World Day against the Death Penalty. This year’s was the 16th, with focus on living conditions of those on the death row. Rights groups have intensified the call for death penalty abolition. Should Nigeria continue to retain the death penalty? ADEBISI ONANUGA asks.

In 2003, the World Coalition Against Death Penalty set aside October 10 as the World Day Against the Death Penalty. Last Wednesday marked the 16th commemoration of the day. Its theme focused on living conditions of those on the death row.

However, 70 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, abolition of the death penalty is close to becoming a reality as more nations are realising that it contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of a society’s human rights. Moreso, it has been established that the death penalty has failed as a deterrent to taking another’s life.

Origin of death sentence

In the traditional African society setting, pre-dating the colonial period, death penalty was imposed where the offender was considered a threat to the peace and security of the community. Back then, offences that could attract death penalty included murder, witchcraft, attitudes and behaviours that disrespected the gods, and repeated thefts. The only alternative to the offences was banishment.

The Sharia, which was applicable in Northern Nigeria, prior the advent of colonial lords, also prescribed death penalty for some offences such as murder considered as deliberate and malicious, rebellion and armed Robbery involving death, among others.

Crimes punishable by death

All over the world, crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital offences, and they include murder, treason, espionage, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

According to Amnesty International, “as of July 2015, 101 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes in law, while 143 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. At least 607 executions were carried out worldwide in 2014, a decrease of almost 22% compared to the figures recorded for 2013. Executions were recorded in 22 countries in 2014, the same number as 2013.

“This is a significant decrease from 20 years ago in 1995, when there were executions in 42 countries, highlighting the clear global trend of states moving away from the death penalty. Last year in only 11.5 per cent of the total number of countries of the world, people were executed.

“Three countries have signed treaties to abolish the death penalty, but not have not yet ratified them: Angola, Madagascar, Sao Tome and Principe”, it stated.

Global trends

Last Thursday, Communications and Multimedia Minister in Malaysia Gobind Singh Deo confirmed the cabinet had resolved to end the death penalty. Deo said given this development, more than 1,200 people on death row are to win a reprieve.

In Malaysia, capital punishment is mandatory for murder, kidnapping, possession of firearms and drug trafficking, among others, and it is carried out by hanging, a legacy of the British colonial rule. The amended law outlawing death penalty was to be discussed by the parliament yesterday.

According to Ambassador of the European Union to Pakistan, Jean-François Cautain, Pakistan, reputed for having the highest number of people on death row, is also in the process of reviewing the prospects of reducing the number of the offences which grant death penalty.

“As partners and friends the European Union and Pakistan have had numerous political discussions on the issue of the death penalty since the lifting of the moratorium in 2014. Within such dialogues, the EU always voices its strong principled opposition to the death penalty as a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, violating the right to life, while not deterring crime more effectively. He hoped that it is positive that in the future the rational exercise of the power of pardon and mercy might be used by the President.

“We as EU acknowledge the sensitivity of the matter and the circumstances behind the decision to lift the moratorium in 2014. We do understand that changing public opinion takes time and commitment. While Pakistan accounts for 13 per cent of all global executions it is a welcome and positive sign to witness that executions have also dropped from 325 in 2015 to 87 in 2016, to 44 in 2017 and to 10 this year”, Jean-François Cautain said.

The Caribbean Court of Justice, Barbados has also struck down mandatory death penalty for capital offences. The country’s apex court unanimously declared the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional in Barbados, finally settling an issue which has occupied domestic and international tribunals for almost 15 years.

The trend in Africa

Burkina Faso took the lead when it joined the global trend on the abolition of death penalty.

On 31 May, the Burkinabe Parliament abolished the death penalty by adopting a new criminal code that excludes it from the arsenal of sentences regardless of crimes considered and circumstances in which they were committed.

In December 2017, two Kenyan men challenged the legality of capital punishment at the Supreme Court, which resulted in the then Chief Justice declaring the mandatory nature of the death sentence unconstitutional. Following this groundbreaking statement, the Taskforce on the Review of the Mandatory Nature of the Death Penalty was appointed on March 15, 2018. Also in 2017, another African countries, Guinea, abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

Other African countries that have abolished death sentence include Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire,  Liberia, Senegal and Togo.

Death sentence in Nigeria

Despite the global trend on the abolition of death sentence, the country has continued to impose capital punishment on those convicted of capital offences by the courts.

As at date, the country has 2,359 condemned prisoners on death row in various prisons as state governors, who have the constitutional power to sign death warrants, have declined to sign, lending credence to the widely-held belief that the government lacks the will power to enforce death penalty.

The condemned prisoners go through psychological torture and are kept in solitary confinement,. They are not allowed to meet with other inmates so they die many times before their death while waiting for the hangman’s noose.

This informed this year’s theme, “Focus on living conditions of those on death row”.

A 2012 study based on a nationwide survey showed that about 51 per cent of Nigerians oppose death penalty as punishment for crimes. Only 42 per cent supported its retention; seven per cent were unsure.

The study, conducted with the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office/British High Commission, found that nearly two-thirds of young people between 18-30 opposed the death penalty (58 per cent). However, 86 per cent of respondents believed the problems of crime and insecurity were “very serious”.

In 2017, the government rejected the call by Amnesty International to halt the planned execution of some inmates in Lagos State, pointing out that the death penalty was expressly authorised by Section 33 of the Constitution of Nigeria.

Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulates that: “Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in the execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria”

Capital offences in Nigeria

In Nigeria, offences that constitute capital offences are spelt out in the Criminal and Penal Code. For instance under Section 221 of the Penal Code, the only sentence a judge can pronounce is death whenever a person is charged before the court under this law and found culpable of homicide and no allocutus or discretion can be entertained and exercised by the trial judge. The only exception is if the convict, as at the time the offence was committed, has not attain 17 years of age.

Offences that attract the death penalty include murder (Section 319 of the Criminal Code), treason (section 37), treachery (section 49A), giving false evidence that leads to conviction (Section 159 of the Penal Code), robbery with firearms or offensive weapons (Section 1 of the Robbery and Firearms Act), adultery (Sharia Penal Codes), among others.

Capital punishment is applied to kidnapping that leads to death of victim in some states. In 2009, kidnapping became a capital offence in Abia, Anambra, Imo, Enugu, Ebonyi and Akwa-Ibom. The Edo State Government followed suit in 2013 with Lagos State being the latest in making it a capital offence and it carries the death penalty.

Arguments for and against death penalty

There have been a myriad of arguments back and forth against the death penalty. Proponents of abolision of death penalty have argued that in an imperfect society one can never be sure if the worst of the criminals has been gotten under the law. The question they often ask  is whether it is ever justified to take a life? They argued that there is the risk of executing innocent people in any justice system. To them, no matter how developed a justice system is, it will always remain susceptible to human failure. Unlike prison sentences, they said death penalty, often times, when imposed, is irreversible and irreparable.

They further argued that death penalty is capable of being used  in a disproportional manner against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic, political and religious groups.

They also canvassed arguments that death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity. According to them, death penalty violates the right to life which is the most basic of all human rights and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.

They contended that death penalty does not deter crime effectively and that the death penalty lacks the deterrent effect which is commonly referred to by its advocates.

Also, the General Assembly of the United Nations, UNGA Resolution 65/206 stated: “there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty”.

According to Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa. Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui: “All executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated”.

But many retentionists, in their desire for a crime free society, argued that the effectiveness of the death penalty will help prevent crimes and rid the society of criminals. These advocates of death penalty believed in the principle of aged long tradition of “an eye for an eye”, whoever takes life, his life must be taken in turn by the state.

They argued that without the death penalty, hardened criminals would go from bad to worse since there is no limiting fear of death. They are also of the view that abolition of the death penalty would promote self-help.

A professor of law, Kharisu Chukkol, said: “The knowledge that a wanton murderer would get only a life sentence with the possibility of state pardon may compel an overzealous police officer or the victim of such an offence to seek revenge outside the law.”

The university don, who describes himself as a retentionist, faulted statistics that claim that the death penalty does not serve as a general deterrence. He said such statistics was not wholly accurate in so far as they do not address the other variables.Besides, he said the debate as to whether the death penalty should be abolished should be widened to include all Nigerians of all strata, not just members of the elite who readily cite countless jurisdictions where the death penalty is no more in existence.

Chukkol said that should the death penalty be abolished through legislation, the autonomy enjoyed by states would further be eroded.

“In particular, that may lead to unnecessary controversy with the majority of the states in the North drawing the conclusion that that Shari’a is being killed through the back door, i.e., doing away with the Islamic punishments of murder (hiraba), adultery and its affiliates.

No doubt, taking a life is cruel in all circumstances. No matter the reason, no matter the cause. It reveals weakness and not strength. Even before their executions, the sole living conditions of the people sentenced take away their dignity. Evidences around the world have also revealed that capital punishment put innocent lives at risk and impact their families too. It is moreover a marker of social inequality as it affects the most deprived who cannot afford a fair legal representation.

Reactions from lawyers

Lawyers, in their various reaction to the global trend, contended that it is illegal and unconstitutional to execute death sentence by hanging or firing  squad as it will lead to the violation of the convict’s fundamental right  to freedom from torture guaranteed by the Constitution. Rather, they suggested that all the convicts on death row should have such death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. They include Babatunde Fashanu (SAN), Chief Sebastine Hon (SAN), Femi Falana (SAN), Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), a Lecturer of law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG), Akoka, Wahab Shittu,  former Vice President, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Monday Ubani, and President, Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Malachy Ugwummadu.

Fashanu: Scrap death penalty

Fashanu believes the death penalty should be scrapped because the world has moved on.

“It is now common knowledge that our justice system allows for errors where people jailed for grievous  offences are now found to be innocent upon the advent of cutting edge technological advances in the forensic world like DNA technology exposing a lot of wrong convictions.

“Hence, innocent convicts could have been executed if the death penalty was applicable. However, if merely jailed, amends could still be made for the person who is still alive.

“Secondly, lives of people sentenced to death for political offences would be spared for possible reprieve in the future.

“The modern view of the aim of punishment for criminals is not punitive but reformatory,” Fashanu said.

Hon: I vote for abolition

Hon remarked that death sentence has been part of the country’s penal laws from time immemorial but that it has not deter, especially criminality, or violent crimes like armed robbery and the rest.

“So, I would go for abolition of death penalty. I would also support it. Or rather, let the state commute such crime, they should get life jail, because if they go to prison, and they are detained or imprisoned in those detention centres, they most likely would get reformed and be better people. For that to materialised, there must be comprehensive prison reforms.

“In advance countries where we have death penalty abolished,  their prisons are even better than some homes in Nigeria, where people go to learn trades, go to learn handworks and get themselves involved in many meaningful activities.

“So, I think I have to vote for abolition of death sentence on the condition that  we have comprehensive prison reforms that would make prisoners have a re-think and repent when they are sent to jail kept in these prisons because without that, it can be counter-productive”, Hon argued.

He further stated: “ I also for see  a problem whereby people w ho do jail deliveries, the governors and the President, they can abuse the constitutional provisions guaranteeing  them such rights, regardless of the fact that constitutional provisions granting them such rights, by releasing people who have been jailed for life now that we are advocating life sentence. Releasing them involves dirty politics.

Notwithstanding abuse of constitutional provisions,  Hon maintained that that should not hinder the country  from abolishing death penalty.

“I think it is a little too harsh, extremely harsh to sentence someone to death. It brings so much torture to anybody awaiting execution on the account of being sentenced to death. As a Christian, I think only God that should be entitled to taking life,” he contended.

Falana: Death sentence meant for the poor

Falana said if anyone deserved death sentence, it was those who steal the commonwealth.

He said: “The death penalty is reserved for the flotsam and the jetsam in a class society like Nigeria. For goodness sake, why should young people involved in armed robbery be  convicted  and sentenced to death for robbing people of a few thousand naira while fat cats who steal billions of Naira from the public treasury are only sentenced to two years jail term with an option of fine?

“As I said somewhere last year, all the convicted armed robbers sentenced to death in Nigeria have not stolen up to N50billion.

“But a big person was recently accused of money laundering of the sum of N250billion. The accused agreed via plea bargain to refund N194 billion and was sentenced to six months imprisonment.”

He recalled that in 2014, he led a team of lawyers to defend 54 soldiers who were charged with mutiny, a capital offence before a court martial for demanding for weapons to fight the well armed Boko Haram terrorists.

“They were convicted and sentenced to death.

“Even though I got the death sentenced imposed on the soldiers commuted to a 10-year imprisonment, the coterie of generals who stole the huge funds set aside to purchase equipment for the counter insurgency operations have been charged with money laundering.

“If convicted they are going to be sentenced to not more than two years imprisonment or less. And they may even be asked to pay fines by the courts,” he lamented.

Falana noted that when very important personalities (VIPs) are charged  with murder or culpable homicide which is a capital offence, they have access to very senior lawyers who will ensure that their clients are tried expeditiously and acquitted.

He said the poor people charged with murder are usually defended by young lawyers with limited knowledge of law and experience.

He recalled: “There was a case where the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa asked what Nigeria was turning to when a lawyer undergoing the youth service was sent to court to defend the accused who was standing trial for matricide. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved.

“Based on such legal hypocrisy I can never support the death penalty. It is a sentence that has outlived its usefulness if it was ever useful,” Falana said.

Shittu: Retain it for serious crimes

Shittu was of the view that the gravity of the offence should determine the punishment.

He argued: “Perpetrators of heinous crimes such as murder, genocide, terrorism and mass murders and such other crimes against humanity deserve the death penalty. This is on the basis of the theory that  he who kills by the sword deserve to die by the sword. The other perspective is the effect sentencing mechanism is meant to serve-deterrence and reform objectives.

“The argument is that the reformatory objective is lost when the perpetrator is taken out of circulation with no opportunity afforded to reform , learn hard lessons and turn a new leaf.

“There is also the Human Rights and spiritual arguments. The point being made here is since no one has the capacity to create lives, in the same vein there should not be available to anyone or the state, the right to take such lives. The other perspective in the realm of the spiritual is the position that judgement should be reserved to God, the Supreme being.

“ The summary of my view, however is that abolition of death penalty should depend on the gravity of the offences, even if the state is entitled to undertake periodic reviews of sentencing options with a view to determining effectiveness, efficiency and popular consciousness.”

Jacobs: Abolition won’t reduce murder cases

But Jacobs, in his reaction, noted the different positions that followed the campaign for abolition of death sentence, noting that some contended that it violates right to life and that it amounts to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

He however contended that the Supreme Court has made authoritative statement on it in Onuaha Kalu v. State (1998) 13NWLR(Pt583)532 and in Nnamah v. State that death sentence is constitutional.

“It is also contended that you cannot take life back once it is taken. Once execution is carried out a person wrongfully convicted cannot seek redress to restore his life back. This argument is neither here or there. There is no provision under our law for the review of conviction once it is confirmed by the Apex Court unless through grant of pardon. It is also argued that death sentence does not deter criminals.

“It is true that the numbers of murder cases have not decreased in our courts over years in spite of death sentence. In Canada it is reported that murder cases have reduced notwithstanding the abolition of death sentence in that country.

“But the records of other countries that abolished it did not show this decreased. I don’t think abolition of death sentence will necessarily reduce murder cases in Nigeria,” he stated.

Pointing out that it is inhuman and cruel to kill, Jacobs noted that some countries stopped execution by hanging on the ground that it was cruel and introduced lethal injections, electrocution, gas chambers or firing squad.

“There is no easy way to take human life. No wonder several people on death row were not hanged  or executed in Nigeria.

“In Kalu’s case, the Supreme Court held that it is inhuman and degrading to keep convicts on death row for a long time but such treatment would not make death sentence passed illegal,” the SAN said.

Jacobs admitted that death sentence is disappearing in the world but maintained that the country  cannot just copy others without considering its peculiar social, cultural, political situations.

“It would appear that people no longer have respect for the sanctity for human life,” Jacobs added.

Ubani, Ugwummadu: Abolish it

Ubani noted that death penalty is part of the country’s current criminal jurisprudence especially for offences like armed robbery, treason and murder.

“The penalty has not been abolished even though there are calls for its abolition. He said it is also on record that several convicts for capital offences are hardly executed   by the various state executives for reasons which are not clear.

“My view is that death penalty should not be abolished if it will act as a deterrence to offenders who are likely to commit capital offences.

“The question should however be whether previous executions have acted  as a deterence?”, he asked.

According to him, “findings had indicated otherwise and so it may be difficult for me to continue to advocate for the retention of capital punishment in the country  when the purpose for its introduction has not been fulfilled.

“Victims of capital offences may hold a different view altogether. Now that the State executives are not even interested in signing up for the execution of convicts, is it not high time we abolish death penalty from our statutes?”, he asked

Ugwummadu said verifiable and credible research has shown all across the world that it never serves such purpose.

He said  statistics, in some States of USA where capital punishment are retained in their penal laws, show a growing incidence of those category violent crimes sought to be deterred.

Similarly, death penalties by “public” firing squads regularly dispensed by the infamous Anti Robbery and Fire Arms Tribunals in the late 70s,80s and early 90s merely sent fears and shivers into law-abiding members of the  population but hardly ever on the hardened criminals who became more emboldened and desperate including infiltrating the law enforcement agencies and compromising them.

The CDHR President also argued that death penalty as a response of state to capital punishment is both defeatist and contradictory.

“The notion that whoever kills must be killed by the state reduces the same state to the level of the criminal who probably went into crime partly on account of the failure of the same State to deal with the socio-economic conditions that forced him into criminal activities in the first place.

“Even in instances where capital punishments, otherwise known as death penalties, are passed pursuant to valid judgments of competent courts of law, it must be remembered that they’re possibilities of grave human and professional mistakes and errors that could lead to the convictions of otherwise innocent persons even up to the Supreme Court.

“A very important dictum popularized by Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (of blesses memory) is to the effect that: ‘the Supreme Court is not final because it’s infallible, but it’s infallible because it’s final’.

“Losely related to the above is the fourth point which is also philosophical and it argues that there is no moral or genealogical basis why the state should take life when it does not create one. What should be done?

“State must strive to reduce the social tensions amongst individuals of a community and within contending components of the society through creation of jobs, infrastructure, equitable distribution of the state resources as well as fair justice delivering system.

“As per convicts on death row, their sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment.

“Perpetual knowledge of imminent death for convicts on death row amount to serious torture and inhuman treatment which is  prohibited and against their fundamental rights under S. 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(As Amended).”