By Nathaniel Zaccheaus, Abuja
Strong opposition greeted a Senate proposal to prescribe the death penalty for kidnapping on Thursday, as Nigeria’s top justice authorities, human rights bodies and security-related institutions warned that capital punishment would neither curb terrorism nor improve national security, but could instead worsen the country’s fragile justice system.
The objections were raised at a one-day public hearing organised by the Senate Joint Committees on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters; National Security and Intelligence; and Interior, on a Bill seeking to amend the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act to classify kidnapping, hostage-taking and related crimes as acts of terrorism punishable by death, without the option of fine or alternative sentence.
Leading the resistance was the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), alongside the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), the Nigerian Law Reform Commission, the Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), the Department of State Services (DSS) and other stakeholders.
*Say capital punishment won’t deter crime, threatens justice reforms, global cooperation
Fagbemi told lawmakers that while the federal government shared the Senate’s concern over the rising wave of kidnapping and violent crimes, introducing a mandatory death sentence would be counterproductive and legally risky.
“While emotionally satisfying, the inclusion of the death penalty risks facilitating the ‘martyrdom’ trap,” the AGF cautioned.
“In ideological or terror-related conflicts, state-sanctioned execution can validate extremist narratives, fuel recruitment and provoke cycles of retaliatory violence.”
He warned that the proposal could also weaken Nigeria’s international cooperation against terrorism and transnational crime.
According to him, many countries would refuse to extradite suspects to Nigeria if they faced execution, thereby creating safe havens abroad for terror financiers and masterminds.
Fagbemi further drew attention to Nigeria’s long-standing reluctance to carry out executions, which has effectively resulted in a de facto moratorium on the death penalty.
He said this reality had contributed to overcrowded correctional centres, prolonged death row incarceration and the risk of further radicalisation within prisons.
“Our focus should be on the certainty of apprehension, diligent investigation and successful prosecution, rather than the ultimate severity of punishment,” the AGF argued.
He proposed life imprisonment without parole as a more effective and realistic alternative sanction.
In a similar vein, the National Human Rights Commission urged the National Assembly to require a mandatory human rights impact assessment of the Bill before passage.
The Commission acknowledged the good intentions behind the legislation but warned that it raised “serious legal, constitutional and policy concerns.”
The NHRC stressed that expanding capital punishment within a criminal justice system still grappling with investigative weaknesses and prosecutorial gaps heightens the danger of irreversible miscarriages of justice.
“Any proposed legislation must enhance, not diminish, the enjoyment of human rights and must comply with constitutional safeguards and international human rights obligations,” the Commission stated.
The Nigerian Bar Association also advised the Senate against a blanket classification of kidnapping as terrorism and the imposition of a mandatory death penalty.
The NBA recommended a graduated and discretionary sentencing regime that reflects the gravity of offences, the intent of offenders and the circumstances of each case.
According to the association, only kidnapping cases involving organised criminal or terrorist networks, or acts intended to intimidate the public or coerce the government, should be considered terrorism-related.
It further urged lawmakers to replace the proposed mandatory death sentence with judicial discretion, allowing penalties ranging from lengthy imprisonment to life sentences, and death only in the most aggravated circumstances.
The NBA also called for more precise definitions of intent, accomplice liability and available defences such as duress, while emphasising the need to harmonise the proposed amendment with existing state anti-kidnapping laws to avoid legal conflicts.
During the hearing, Senator Ekong Sampson aligned with the call for proportionate punishment, arguing that the law must distinguish between varying degrees of harm, the roles offenders play, and the eventual outcomes of criminal acts.
Adding an international perspective, former United Nations Human Rights Envoy and Professor of Human Rights Law at Bournemouth University, Prof. Uchenna Emelonye, described the widespread opposition as a rare consensus among Nigeria’s leading legal and justice institutions.
“The submissions today reaffirm what empirical evidence and global experience consistently show: expanding the death penalty does not stop kidnapping,” Emelonye said.
“What Nigeria urgently needs are deep institutional reforms: intelligence-led policing, effective investigations, speedy prosecutions, border security, arms control and a justice system that prioritises victims.”
He warned that broadening the scope of capital punishment in a system already under strain could result in wrongful convictions without delivering tangible security gains.
At the close of proceedings, the Senate committees assured participants that all submissions would be carefully reviewed and reflected in their final report, as the Red Chamber weighs the proposed amendment in its effort to confront Nigeria’s escalating security challenges.
