News Agency of Nigeria
LG chairman sues Niger Govt. over alleged tenure reduction

LG chairman sues Niger Govt. over alleged tenure reduction

By Taiye Agbaje

Alhaji Aminu Yakubu-Ladan, the Chairman of Chanchaga Local Government Area (LGA) in Niger, has sued the state government over alleged reduction of tenure of local government chairmen and councillors.

 

Yakubu-Ladan, in the suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, sought an order restraining the Niger State Independent Electoral Commission (NSIEC) and its co-defendants from conducting the scheduled LGAs’ election until the expiration of their tenure.

 

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that NSIEC had fixed Nov. 1 for the conduct of the local government poll across the state.

 

However, the plaintiff, in the suit, named the Attorney-General of Niger State, the house of assembly, NSIEC, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Inspector-General (I-G) of Police as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.

 

The chairman is challenging the constitutionality of the Niger State Local Government Law, 2001 which seeks to reduce the tenure of local government chairmen and councillors from four years to three years.

 

Yakubu-Ladan, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1370/2025, dated July 10 but filed July 11 by his counsel, Chris Udeoyibo, sought eight questions for determination.

 

The chairman questions whether the state government can enforce inconsistent local government law, 2001 (as amended) which clashed with the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022.

 

“Should Niger State Local Government Law Section 29 (2) be declared unconstitutional for clashing with the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022,” he said.

 

The plaintiff seeks a declaration that four years tenure for local government chairmen and councillors is constitutionally guaranteed by virtue of the constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022.

 

The suit also challenged NSIEC preparation for local government elections slated for Nov. 1.

 

The plaintiff, therefore, seeks an order restraining the defendants from the elections on Nov. 1 until the expiration of four years tenure for chairmen and councillors.

 

The suit also seeks to restrain INEC and the I-G from providing logistical support and security protection for the election.

 

Yakubu-Ladan argued that the state’ local government law, 2001 is inconsistent with Section 7 of the constitution and Section 018 and 150 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

 

The suit is yet to be assigned to a judge as at the time of the report.(NAN)(www.nannews.com.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Some judicial amendment proposals lack utilitarian values – JB Daudu

Some judicial amendment proposals lack utilitarian values – JB Daudu

By Ebere Agozie

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), JB Daudu, has said some of the judicial proposals submitted to the National Assembly for review lack utilitarian values.

Daudu made this known in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria on Thursday in Abuja.

“One of those proposals is the judicial resignation and succession protocol that regulates resignation procedures for Justices and Judges to avoid abrupt and destabilising departures.

“This is a typical example of institutional idleness.

”How can these transfer mechanisms be observed in the event of sudden death, resignation as a result of grave illness or even sudden resignation as a result of compelling personal reasons?

“Such eventualities and their after effect cannot be regulated upon,’’ the learned silk added.

He argued that the proponents of the amendment lost sight of the fact that the courts are courts of records, and that it is not the Chief Judge or any other Head of Court that is the record keeper.

“Indeed, the records are kept by the chief registrar and his coterie of registrars and clerks, who are civil servants and are permanent features in the establishment’’.

He said that another wild goose chase proposal was that there should be mandatory National Judicial Council (NJC) investigations before the removal of heads of court.

“It is thought that there is a problem with the provisions of Section 292(1)(a)(i) &(ii) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which forbids the removal of judicial officers, especially heads of court, by Governors and Houses of Assembly without recourse first and foremost to NJC investigation.

“This proposal, it is thought, will institutionalize fair hearing rights, ensure due process, and insulate judicial officers from arbitrary removal.’’

He noted that the proposal was the most curious of the proposed amendments as it does not introduce any new position to the state of affairs.

“This is because Section 292(1)(a)(i) & (iì) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) already requires the input of the NJC before a head of court can be removed.

“The solution to acts of executive recklessness and lawlessness of attempts by governors to remove sitting chief judges is not because the present constitution does not forbid it.

“It is because of the attitudinal disposition of some governors to power.

”We will always have people who in their power drunkenness will interpret the constitution in ways and manner which suits their ego or political calculations.

“Consequently, amending the constitution in the manner suggested will not serve any useful purpose,’’ he added.

On the suggestion that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) should have an input in the removal of Judges, Daudu submitted that that proposal is a non-starter.

“It has already failed. This is because the only amendment needed is to allow the five members nominated by the NBA to participate in matters relating to the discipline of Judges.

“I have for years advocated for the removal of the provision in the constitution that limits lawyers from participating in the removal of judicial officers.“

He also frowned on any hindrances to judicial continuity and stability.

The proposal in this regard seeks to empower newly elevated judges to conclude part-heard criminal matters rather than starting afresh, thereby saving judicial time and avoiding injustice.

“The proposal ignores the practical realities, and the injustice associated with a judge who has left the services of a court and has taken the oath of office of another court hierarchy to return to the court he had been elevated from.

“It is submitted that no amount of constitutional amendment will cure that abnormality and aberration.

“It is better to defer the swearing in of an appointed or promoted judge until when he has completed all his part-heard matters than to cause such a judicial personnel to return to a court that he has exited from.

“No one seems to consider the psyche of all the parties concerned, no matter how it is couched.’’

He said that a constitution is a very document that should lay out the basic and indeed, fundamental rules for the governance of the country.

“It is not a factory manual on work and safety regulations. Our legislators should accord the constitution more seriousness than they are presently doing,’’ he said. (NAN)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee releases names of 57 new SANs

Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee releases names of 57 new SANs

By Ebere Agozie

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) has released the list of lawyers newly elevated to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

The names released comprised 56 advocates and one from the academia.

Mr Kanir Akanbi, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court and Secretary of the LPPC, disclosed this on Thursday in Abuja.

He said the list was approved by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, at LPPC’s 169th Plenary Session held on Thursday.

The rank of SAN is conferred as a mark of professional excellence upon legal practitioners who have demonstrated exceptional distinction either as advocates in the courts or as academics contributing significantly to the development of legal scholarship.

He said that the committee also considered three petitions submitted against certain applicants. Upon thorough review, each petition was found to be lacking in merit and was accordingly dismissed.

“In accordance with the directives of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN), all shortlisted prospective Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) conferees are required to attend and successfully complete the Pre-Swearing-In Induction Programme.

He added that the swearing-in ceremony for the 57 successful applicants is scheduled to hold on Sept. 29.

NAN reports that among the advocates are Theophilus Esan, Fedude Zimughan and Ernest Ikeji, while the successful candidate from the academia is Prof. Chima Ubanyionwu. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Court adjourns VDM’s trial until Dec. 2 for allegedly cyberbullying Tonto Dikeh, others

Court adjourns VDM’s trial until Dec. 2 for allegedly cyberbullying Tonto Dikeh, others

By Taiye Agbaje

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, adjourned the trial of controversial social media influencer, Martins Otse, popularly called VeryDarkMan (VDM), for allegedly cyberbullying actresses Iyabo Ojo and Tonto Dikeh, until Dec. 2.

The court fixed the date after the trial judge, Justice Musa Liman, presided over some cases on the cause list and rose.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Inspector-General (I-G) of Police had, on May 15, re-arraigned VDM on five-count charge bordering on alleged cyberbullying, cybercrime, etc.

Besides the two actresses, he was also alleged to have cyberbullied famous Nigerian producer and singer, Samuel Oguachuba, also known as Samklef, among others.

He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

His lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, had prayed the court to allow VDM to continue on the earlier bail granted by Justice Mobolaji Olajuwon of a sister court.

Counsel to the I-G, Victor Okoye, did not object and the judge admitted him to the earlier bail terms and adjourned the matter until July 24 for trial.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that VDM was, on May 22, 2024, arraigned before Justice Olajuwon on same offences contrary to and punishable under Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015.

He was remanded and granted a N10 million bail on June 10, 2024, by the judge with two sureties who must be employee of reputable company or Level 17 officers in a federal civil service with evidence of three years’ tax clearance.

The charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/140/2024 dated and filed on March 28, 2024, was, however, re-assigned to Justice Liman, following Justice Olajuwon’s transfer to another division of the Federal High Court.

In count one, VDM was alleged to have on or about Oct. 13, 2023, intentionally published via a video posted on his Instagram handle ‘verydarkblackman’, (aka verydarkblackman) threatening and bullying words, to harass Samuel Oguachuba.

In count two, he was alleged to have, on or about Oct 29, 2023, intentionally posted videos, by means of computer system on his Instagram handles which contained information that was grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character against Iyabo Ojo.

In the video, he was alleged to have stated that “one Iyabo Ojo is having indecent sexual relationship with her daughter.”

VDM was also accused to have, on or about Jan. 19, 2024, knowingly posted videos on his Instagram handles where he “falsely published that King Tonto Dikeh is accused of criminal conversion of the proceeds of crowd funding for Justice for Mobbad Movement, and being the person behind the gistlover blog.”

In count four, the defendant was alleged to have intentionally posted videos on March 19, 2024, on his Instagram handle against the Deputy-Inspector Generals (DIGs) of Police and lawmakers in the National Assembly considered to be annoying and insulting. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Alleged N3.1bn fraud: Court says ex-Benue governor has case to answer

Alleged N3.1bn fraud: Court says ex-Benue governor has case to answer

By Wandoo Sombo
The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday, said former Benue Governor, Gabriel Suswam, and his former Commissioner for Finance, Omadachi Oklobia, have a case to answer in the N3.1 billion charge against them.
Delivering a ruling in the no-case submission entered by Suswam and Oklobia, Justice Peter Lifu held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against them that required them to defend.
Justice Lifu said that he had been persuaded by the defendants to invoke Section 302 and 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 to hold that they had no case to answer.
“Upon perusing the evidence before the court, I am mindful to hold that the defendants have some explanation to offer in the interest of fair hearing.
“The prosecution has placed before the court legally admissible evidence linking the two defendants to the allegations.
“They need to throw some light on the allegations because a prima face case has been established against them.
“The defendants’ no-case submission is refused and they are called upon to open their defence,” the judge ruled.
The judge adjourned the matter until Sept. 22 and Sept. 26 for the defendants to open and possibly close their case.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Suswam and Oklobia are standing trial on an 11-count amended charge bordering on conspiracy, money laundering and criminal breach of trust to the tune of N3.1 billion.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the prosecuting agency, alleged that the funds in question were part of the proceeds from the sale of Benue government shares managed by the Benue Investment and Property Company Limited (BIPC).
That the shares were sold through Elixir Securities Limited and Elixir Investment Partners Limited.
On the last adjourned date,  Suswam’s Counsel, Chinedu Ogbozor, and Paul Erokoro, SAN, representing Oklobia, informed the court that they had filed a no-case submission on behalf of their clients.
They said that the decision to file the no-case submission stemmed from Sections 302 and 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
They urged the court to adopt their submission which they supported with a written address.
They prayed the court to discharge and acquit the defendants, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
In response, lead prosecution counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, opposed the application, referencing his written reply submitted in July.
He urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission, maintaining that the evidence on record sufficiently connected the defendants to the charge.
NAN recalls that the duo were first arraigned before Justice Ahmed Mohammed in November 2015.
He later recused himself from the case before it was reassigned to another judge, Justice Okon Abang, for hearing.
Mohammed had referenced a media report by Sahara Reporters which accused him of having been compromised to give Suswam a soft landing as his reason to withdraw from the case.
Suswam challenged the jurisdiction of the court presided over by Justice Abang to handle the suit.
In a ruling in February 2020, the Court of Appeal in Abuja ordered a return of the case to Justice Mohammed for trial.
Consequently, Mohammed began hearing of the case to the extent that the EFCC closed its prosecution.
While the defendants were preparing to open their defence, Mohammed was elevated from the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal in 2023.
With Justice Mohammed’s elevation, the case was reassigned to Justice Lifu, where  Suswam and Okolobia had to take a fresh plea.
NAN reports that Suswam and Oklobia were re-arraigned before Lifu where they pleaded not guilty to the charge when it was read to them.
Their lawyers prayed the court to allow their clients to enjoy the previous bail conditions granted them by Justice Mohammed, the former judge, who was handling the case before his elevation to the Court of Appeal.
 Lifu warned lawyers that he would not be a part of the case’s chequered history. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)
Edited by Ifeyinwa Okonkwo/Sadiya Hamza
Court strikes out charge against Oba Otudeko, others

Court strikes out charge against Oba Otudeko, others

By Sandra Umeh

A Federal High Court Lagos, on Wednesday, struck out a charge preferred by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), against Chairman of the Honeywell Group, Oba Otudeko and others.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, struck out the charge, following EFCC’s information to the court that parties had achieved full settlement in the case.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that EFCC preferred a 13-count charge against Oba Otudeko and a former Managing Director of First Bank Plc, Olabisi Onasanya.

Also charged were a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

At the last adjourned date of March 17, first defense counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), had informed the court that a meeting involving all counsel, had been convened at the instance of the Attorney General (AG).

He had said that this was aimed at reaching a peaceful settlement of the case.

The prosecution, had confirmed the position to the court, which then adjourned the case for a report of settlement.

When the case was called on Wednesday, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) announced appearance for the prosecution together with Mrs Bilikisu Buhari and S.I Suleiman.

Mr Bode Olanipekun (SAN) appeared for the first defendant, Mr A Olumide-Fusika (SAN) appeared for the second defendant, and Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) appeared for the third defendant.

Meanwhile, Mr Elijah Akefe appeared for the fourth defendant while Mr B.O Ofulue, appeared for the nominal complainant (First Bank).

Counsel to the first defendant (Olanipekun), then informed the court that all outstanding issues between the first defendant and the nominal complainant (first bank), had been resolved.

He told the court that same had been duly communicated to the appropriate authorities, including the prosecution.

Counsel to the nominal complainant (Ofulue), confirmed the position to the court.

In response, the prosecutor confirmed the position to the court that there had been settlement of the issues, and gave a detailed recall of all incidences, including the meetings held as well as resolutions.

Citing the provisions of section 180 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, he averred that in the interest of justice, public policy and the need to prevent abuse of court process, the AG decided that the matter be discontinued.

Counsel to all defendants confirmed the position as stated by prosecution.

Justice Aneke, consequently held: “This charge is hereby struck out”.

Meanwhile, in a statement by its Counsel, Olasumbo Abolaji, Honeywell welcomed the development, calling it a reaffirmation of Otudeko’s integrity.

“Honeywell Group confirms that the legal proceedings initiated by the EFCC against our Chairman, Oba Otudeko, in connection with matters relating to First Holdco Plc, have been formally withdrawn.

“This development marks the closure of a chapter that, while challenging, never diminished our confidence in Otudeko’s integrity or our belief in the principles that have guided his life and leadership.

“At no point was there any finding or admission of wrongdoing, and this conclusion further affirms what we have always maintained, that this was a commercial transaction, investigated by the EFCC and resolved eight years ago.

“Otudeko’s service, enterprise, and nation-building record stand firm and unblemished.

“For over six decades, he has contributed significantly to Nigeria’s economic and institutional development, including distinguished tenures across banking, industry, and public service.” he said

The Group reaffirmed its commitment to creating value through enterprise in food, energy, infrastructure, and financial services.

“As we move forward, we do so strengthened by experience, focused on the future, and anchored in the enduring values that have always shaped our journey,”.(NAN)

Edited by Tosin Kolade

You cannot enforce a judgment you appealed, lawyer tells Natasha

You cannot enforce a judgment you appealed, lawyer tells Natasha

By Taiye Agbaje

A legal practitioner, Ken Harries, says Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot enforce a judgment of the lower court in which she has filed an appeal.

The senior lawyer stated this in Abuja in reaction to the Kogi Central senator’s alleged invasion of the National Assembly (NASS) on Tuesday to resume her legislative duties.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan had, on Tuesday, stormed NASS, along with her teeming supporters, claiming to want to enforce the judgment of the Federal High Court (FHC) sitting in Abuja, which she claimed ordered her recall.

The lawmaker had, recently, filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, challenging the judgment of Justice Binta Nyako of FHC which found her guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of N5 million.

The senator, in her appeal, prayed the appellate court to set aside the judgment delivered on July 4 on the grounds that it was legally flawed, procedurally defective and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

Reacting to the development on Tuesday, Harries accused Akpoti-Uduaghan “of seeking to eat her cake and still have it by appealing the July 4 judgment and still attempting to enforce the same judgment.”

The lawyer wondered if taking law into one’s hands, as allegedly shown by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s conduct, was the right way to enforce a judgment.

“In my many years in legal practice, I have not seen such a display of lawlessness from a supposed federal lawmaker.

“How do you invade the National Assembly with a group of touts, claiming to want to enforce a judgment?

“There are procedures for judgment enforcement.

“It is not for an individual to take the law into his or her own hands, create a crisis atmosphere on the pretext of wanting to enforce a judgment,” Harries said.

He recalled that Akpoti-Uduaghan filed an appeal against the judgment about a week ago, faulting the judgment and praying the Court of Appeal to set it aside.

Harries, who queried the rationale behind Akpoti-Uduaghan’s decision to invade the National Assembly, sought to know what judgment she was seeking to enforce.

“How do you enforce a judgment that you have said you are not satisfied with, condemned, appealed and prayed the Court of Appeal to reverse?

“Assuming the judgment is still enforceable, has she complied with all the orders made against her, including that she pay N5 million and publish public apology in two newspapers and her Facebook page?

“If she has failed to obey the same judgment by not complying with the orders made against her, what moral standing does she have to accuse the leadership of the Senate of being lawless?

“Her lawyers should be in a better position to advise her to learn to be lawful and respect the rule of law,” he said.

According to Harries, whoever goes to equity must go with clean hands. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Court dismisses suit seeking to stop allocation to Kano LGAs

Court dismisses suit seeking to stop allocation to Kano LGAs

By Ramatu Garba
A Federal High Court sitting in Kano, on Monday, dismissed a suit filed by Abdullahi Abbas of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and one other seeking to stop statutory allocations to the 44 Local Government Areas of Kano State.
Abbas, Aminu Aliyu-Tiga, and the APC , through their counsel, Sunday Olowomoran, filed a motion exparte dated Oct. 28, and filed on Nov.1, 2024.
The respondents in the suit are the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, (RMAFC), Accountant-General of the Federation, Minister of Finance, Auditor General of the Federation, and Attorney General of the Federation.
Others are the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), the Kano State Government, Attorney General Kano, Kano State Independent Electoral Commission (KANSIEC) and the 44 Kano local governments.
The applicants are seeking a declaration that the 12th to 55th respondents are not democratically elected and constituted pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

They are also asking the court to restrain the Federal Government, the CBN, and the Accountant-General from disbursing statutory funds to Kano’s 44 local government councils.

Justice Simon Amobeda, in his ruling, held that even though a notice of discontinuance which ought to be filed not later than 14 days after service, was filed, a hearing date had been fixed, citing Order 50 Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the court.

“To avoid resuscitating the case in the future, the proper order to make is to dismiss the case.

“In view of this, leave is hereby granted to the applicants to withdraw the case. The suit is hereby dismissed with no cost,” Amobeda said.

Earlier, while addressing the court on the propriety or otherwise of the case, counsel to the applicants, Mr Sunday Olowomoran, on behalf of the lead counsel, Abdul Adamu-Fagge, SAN, made an oral application to withdraw the case.
“My Lord, this suit was appealed. The appellate court on June 30, said this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that the Kano State High Court is the proper court to entertain it,” Olowomoran said, urging the court to strike out the case.

Counsel to CBN and RMAFC, Mr. B. D. Uche and S. G. Ahmad, told the court that their clients were not part of the appeal at the appellate court and urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N1 million each.

Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation, Tajudeen Abdullahi, urged the court to dismiss the suit, not strike it out, with a cost of N2.5 million.

Counsel to Kano State Government, Bashir Yusuf-Muhammad, urged the court to apply the principle of law by dismissing the suit with a cost of N2 billion against the plaintiffs.

Also, counsel to the Kano State Attorney-General, Sani Mustafa-Dauda, also urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N5 million.

Counsel to KANSIEC, Ibrahim Wangida, urged the court to dismiss the suit, not strike it out.

“My Lord, KANSIEC has suffered psychological and physical trauma; the office was locked for three months. We have filed processes, services, and printing. We are asking for a cost of N2 million,” he said.

Counsel to the 44 local governments, Eyitayo Fatogun, SAN, also urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N2 million, citing Order 50 of the rules of the court.

Counsel for the 44 elected local government chairmen, Mustapha Hussaini, urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N44 million.

NAN reports that the court, on Oct. 23, 2024, halted the conduct of the local government councils’ election scheduled for Oct. 26, 2025, until KANSIEC is properly reconstituted, as it had previously been dissolved by the court for partisanship. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)
Edited by Ifeyinwa Okonkwo/Sadiya Hamza
NHRC, NGO secure 4 inmates’ release from Suleja corrections centre

NHRC, NGO secure 4 inmates’ release from Suleja corrections centre

By Edith Nwapi

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Hope Behind Bars Africa (HBBA) on Monday facilitated the release of four Suleja Correctional Service inmates.

The release took place during a visit to the facility by NHRC and HBBA in commemoration of Nelson Mandela Day.

Speaking, the Executive Secretary of NHRC, Dr Tony Ojukwu, SAN, explained that July 18 was the official Mandela Day.

“We took leave to celebrate it today because we wanted to celebrate it with the inmates at the Suleja Correctional Centre.

“We celebrate the Mandela Day every year to shine light on the legacy of a man who changed how prisoners should be treated.

“So that their dignity will be maintained, so that poverty will be eliminated.”

He said that prisoners are entitled to the right to food, health, freedom of expression and must be treated with dignity.

He added that there is still hope.

“Today we have also paid fines for those who were locked up because they couldn’t afford to pay,” he said.

Also speaking, Mr Samuel Olukade, Chief Legal Officer of HBBA, expressed concern that there were few correctional centres in the country for female inmates.

He urged corrections officers to treat female inmates with special care.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the four inmates released are Michael Udoh, Abdul Hassan, Mohammed Sani and Yunusa Yusuf.

The fine of N300,000 was paid for their offence.

They were also given transport fares to enable them get home. (NAN) (www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Rethinking the Death Penalty dilemma in Nigeria

Rethinking the Death Penalty dilemma in Nigeria

By Judiciary Reporters, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

With hundreds of inmates languishing on death row and governors increasingly reluctant to sign execution warrants, Nigeria finds itself caught between legal duty and moral conscience.

Although capital punishment remains enshrined in the Constitution, a growing number of legal experts, human rights advocates, and policy stakeholders are calling for sentencing reforms.

This includes proposals to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, which many stakeholders consider a more humane and legally sustainable alternative.

Under Nigerian law, state governors have the constitutional responsibility to sign death warrants for convicts sentenced to capital punishment.

This authority forms part of their role as heads of the executive arm of government and underscores their responsibility to ensure that justice is carried out.

In addition, governors are empowered to grant clemency, including pardons or commutations, which may ultimately halt an execution.

Nevertheless, international attention has remained fixed on Nigeria’s death penalty policy.

The UN General Assembly has repeatedly called for a global moratorium on executions, with the long-term goal of abolishing capital punishment altogether.

Consequently, Nigeria has come under pressure from international human rights bodies to address its continued application of the death sentence.

Although Nigeria is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides guidance on the application of the death penalty, it has yet to abolish capital punishment formally.

However, there is a de facto moratorium in place, meaning executions are no longer carried out, even though the law allowing for capital punishment remains active.

As a result, several observers and advocacy groups have urged the government to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which commits signatory nations to abolishing the death penalty.

According to the Nigerian Constitution, the decision to sign a death warrant lies solely with the governor of each state.

This discretion allows governors to either approve or delay execution, even after all legal appeals have been exhausted.

While the law permits executions, the practical decision often reflects personal convictions, political calculations, or concerns over human rights.

Since the country’s return to democracy in 1999, executions have been rare.

For instance, the execution of Sani Yakubu Rodi under Sharia Law in Katsina State in 2002, and a series of hangings carried out in Edo during Gov. Adams Oshiomhole’s tenure between 2012 and 2016, remain among the few documented cases.

These sparse instances underscore Nigeria’s status as a country where the death penalty exists in law but is seldom enforced in practice.

Meanwhile, legal practitioners across the country are divided over the morality, relevance, and enforceability of capital punishment.

The growing reluctance by governors to sign execution warrants has prompted renewed debate about the future of the death penalty in Nigeria.

Speaking to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recently, Mr Stephen Oluebube, a legal expert, said religious beliefs and misconceptions about official responsibilities may be discouraging governors from signing execution orders.

According to him, many religions, especially Christianity and Islam, oppose the unjust taking of human life.

“Hence, many governors think that by signing execution warrants, they are personally responsible for the killing.

“Most of them fail to understand that signing such warrants is a constitutional act of the office, not of the individual,” he explained.

Oluebube further argued that although human rights groups have consistently called for abolition, Nigeria might not yet be ready to completely discard the death penalty.

“Its existence has deterred many from engaging in extreme violence,” he said.

However, another lawyer, Mr Sydney Nwachukwu, held a different view.

He insisted that only God has the right to take life, noting flaws in the judicial process.

“Our judges are human and prone to errors. Many murder convicts may not have the financial resources to pursue appeals up to the Supreme Court,” he said.

He added that he does not support the death penalty and believes the system is too flawed to justify irreversible punishments.

“Our police investigations and judiciary are corrupt and compromised. The entire framework requires an overhaul”.

In a similar vein, Mr Damian Nwankwo described capital punishment as a legal penalty that is rarely enforced because of governors’ increasing moral and ethical reservations.

“Although courts pronounce death sentences, the burden of implementation rests on governors’ consciences,” he said.

Nwankwo listed other reasons for the reluctance, including pressure from civil society, fear of judicial error, and political ramifications.

“Human rights organisations have consistently campaigned against the death penalty. Many governors fear backlash from religious leaders, advocacy groups, and the international community,” he explained.

He also expressed concern over the possibility of wrongful executions, which could spark national outrage.

“For politicians mindful of public opinion and future ambitions, the risks of signing far outweigh the benefits,” he added.

Nwankwo stressed that Nigeria appears to be operating an unofficial moratorium.

“Many death sentences are commuted to life imprisonment, or inmates remain on death row for years without resolution”.

To address this dilemma, Nwankwo called for urgent legal and constitutional reforms.

“We must review the laws governing capital punishment and the governor’s role. Our current legal framework is outdated and misaligned with global human rights standards,” he said.

He urged lawmakers to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole for the most serious offences.

According to him, Nigeria is a signatory to key international treaties that discourage capital punishment, including the ICCPR and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

He added that the reform would reflect Nigeria’s commitment to human rights and improve prison conditions by offering avenues for commutation or retrials.

“Thousands of inmates languish in terrible conditions on death row. We must create pathways for rehabilitation, not indefinite suffering”.

Another lawyer, Mr Thaddeus Mbalian, said Nigeria’s international treaty commitments discourage executions.

He called for internal law reform to bring the country in line with international expectations.

However, he noted that Nigeria’s dualist legal system, where treaties do not automatically override domestic laws, complicates the process.

“Executing judicial decisions has become a challenge. To avoid delays and confusion, we should abolish the death penalty entirely,” Mbalian said.

Similarly, Mrs Queendoline Ekong argued that the death penalty should be removed from Nigeria’s statute books due to long-standing implementation difficulties.

Also, Mr Yakubu Dauda, another legal voice, pointed out that the Federal Government lacks the authority to compel governors to carry out executions.

“Under Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution, only state governors; after consulting their State Advisory Councils on Prerogative of Mercy, can sign death warrants,” he said.

“The president cannot interfere or compel a governor to sign a death warrant. It is a purely state-level constitutional mandate,” he added.

He noted that some governors choose to commute death sentences to life imprisonment instead of signing execution orders, often in response to public and international pressure.

NAN investigations reveal that only three governors have signed death warrants since Nigeria’s return to democracy.

In 2006, Gov. Ibrahim Shekarau of Kano reportedly signed for the execution of about seven inmates.

Gov. Adams Oshiomhole of Edo signed in 2012 for two prisoners who were later hanged.

Gov. Godwin Obaseki, also of Edo, signed for three inmates in 2016, and those executions were carried out shortly after.

As the national conversation continues, legal experts agree that the current state of capital punishment in Nigeria is unsustainable.

They insist that the absence of executions, albeit legal provisions, contributes to public uncertainty and weakens confidence in the justice system.

They, however, recommend replacing the death penalty with life sentences for the most heinous crimes and aligning domestic law with international best practices.

Without clear policy direction, they warn, the country risks further erosion of justice and continued ambiguity over the fate of those on death row. (NAN)

***If used, please credit the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).

X
Welcome to NAN
Need help? Choose an option below and let me be your assistant.
Email SubscriptionSite SearchSend Us Email