The case summary of  Kalu v The State (SC 24/1996) [1998] NGSC 7; (1998) All N.L.R. 407 (18 December 1998), Supreme Court of Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

Onuoha Kalu v The State (1998) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Nigeria that addressed the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty under Nigerian law. The appellant challenged his death sentence on the basis that it violated his fundamental rights to life and human dignity as guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution. This case is widely regarded as Nigeria’s locus classicus on the death penalty and human rights, as the Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment, ruling that it did not contravene the constitutional protections of life and dignity. The judgment has had a profound impact on Nigerian criminal law and human rights jurisprudence, shaping the legal landscape regarding capital punishment despite ongoing debates and criticisms about its compatibility with international human rights standards

Background

Onuoha Kalu v The State (1998) is a landmark Supreme Court of Nigeria case that addressed the constitutionality of the death penalty under Nigerian law. The appellant, Onuoha Kalu, was convicted of murder by the High Court of Lagos State for unlawfully stabbing the deceased, Agbai Ezikpe, to death with a broken beer bottle in 1981. He was sentenced to death pursuant to the mandatory death penalty provision under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code of Lagos State, which prescribes death for murder.

Kalu appealed the sentence on the grounds that the death penalty violated his  constitutional rights to life and human dignity as guaranteed by sections 30(1) and 31(1) of the Nigerian Constitution. The case raised important constitutional questions about whether the mandatory death penalty infringed on these fundamental human rights. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision delivered on 18 December 1998, upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, ruling that it did not violate the right to life or human dignity under the Constitution.

This ruling became Nigeria’s locus classicus on the death penalty and human rights, setting a precedent that has influenced subsequent death penalty jurisprudence in Nigeria. Although the decision affirmed the legality of capital punishment, it has been subject to criticism for its limited engagement with the broader human dignity provisions and comparative constitutional jurisprudence. The case remains a cornerstone in Nigerian legal discourse on the balance between criminal justice and fundamental human rights.

Facts of the case

Onuoha Kalu was convicted by the High Court of Lagos State for the murder of Agbai Ezikpe, which occurred on or about 24 August 1981 in Yaba, Lagos. The murder involved stabbing the deceased with a broken beer bottle. Pursuant to section 319(1) of the Lagos State Criminal Code, which mandates the death penalty for murder, Kalu was sentenced to death. He appealed the sentence, challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty under sections 30(1) and 31(1) of the 1979 Nigerian Constitution, which guarantee the rights to life and human dignity respectively.

Issues

The Supreme Court considered two main issues:

• Whether the appellant was properly arraigned in accordance with procedural rules (the rule in Kajubo’s case).
• Whether section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, prescribing the mandatory death penalty for murder, was inconsistent with sections 30(1) and 31(1)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution, and thus null and void. In other words, whether the mandatory death penalty violated the constitutional rights to life and human dignity.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:
The appellant contended that the mandatory death penalty violated his constitutional rights to life and human dignity. He argued that the death penalty was a cruel and inhuman punishment incompatible with constitutional protections. He also raised procedural irregularities related to his arraignment.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The State argued that the death penalty was constitutionally permissible and that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence for murder was valid under Nigerian law. The State maintained that the Constitution did not prohibit capital punishment and that the procedural requirements had been met.

Courts Analysis

In Onuoha Kalu v The State (1998), the Supreme Court of Nigeria undertook a detailed legal analysis to determine the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty under section 319(1) of the Lagos State Criminal Code in light of sections 30(1) and 31(1)(a) of the 1979 Nigerian Constitution, which guarantee the right to life and prohibit torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, respectively.

Legal Reasoning and Relevant Laws

1. Right to Life (Section 30(1))
   The appellant argued that the mandatory death penalty violated his constitutional right to life. The Court, however, interpreted this right as not being absolute. It held that the Constitution expressly allows for the deprivation of life through judicial execution as a lawful penalty for murder. The Court reasoned that since the Constitution did not expressly prohibit the death penalty, it was permissible under Nigerian law. The death penalty was therefore not inconsistent with the right to life provision.
2. Human Dignity and Prohibition of Inhuman Treatment (Section 31(1)(a))
   The appellant contended that the death penalty amounted to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, thus violating the human dignity clause. The Court distinguished between “treatment” and “punishment,” noting that section 31(1)(a) prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment but does not explicitly mention punishment. It concluded that the death penalty, as a form of punishment prescribed by law, did not fall within the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court emphasized that any objection to the method of execution should be addressed legislatively, not judicially.
3. Mandatory Nature of the Death Penalty
   The Court acknowledged that section 319(1) of the Criminal Code mandated the death penalty for murder without judicial discretion. Despite this, it held that the mandatory imposition did not render the penalty unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the legislature had the authority to prescribe such a penalty, and the judiciary was bound to apply it.

Procedural Issues and Jurisdiction
The Court also addressed procedural issues, including the proper arraignment of the appellant, affirming that the trial court had jurisdiction and that the appellant was properly arraigned in accordance with established rules (the rule in Kajubo’s case).

Interpretation and Judicial Approach

The Court adopted a textual and literal interpretation of the Constitution, focusing on the explicit language of sections 30(1) and 31(1)(a). It refrained from expanding the scope of human rights protections beyond the constitutional text.

It relied on the principle of constitutional supremacy, holding that since the Constitution permitted the death penalty, courts could not declare it unconstitutional without an amendment.

The Court distinguished punishment from treatment, limiting the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment to non-punitive contexts.

It acknowledged comparative jurisprudence but did not fully engage with international human rights standards or the evolving global consensus against the death penalty, which has drawn scholarly criticism.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision delivered on 18 December 1998, held:The appellant was properly arraigned in accordance with the procedural rules.

Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code was not inconsistent with the constitutional provisions on the right to life and human dignity. The Court ruled that the death penalty did not violate these rights under the Nigerian Constitution.

The mandatory death sentence for murder was therefore upheld as constitutional.

The Court emphasized that issues concerning constitutionality and jurisdiction should be addressed at the earliest opportunity. The judgment became Nigeria’s locus classicus on the death penalty, affirming its constitutionality despite ongoing debates about its human rights implications.

Significance

This case remains the leading authority in Nigeria on the constitutionality of the death penalty. It has shaped Nigerian criminal law by affirming that capital punishment does not contravene constitutional rights to life and dignity. However, the decision has attracted criticism for its limited engagement with the human dignity clause and comparative constitutional jurisprudence, leaving unresolved tensions in Nigerian death penalty jurisprudence.

Conclusion
Onuoha Kalu v The State (1998) is a seminal Nigerian Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty under section 319(1) of the Lagos State Criminal Code. The appellant challenged his death sentence on the grounds that it violated his constitutional rights to life and human dignity under sections 30(1) and 31(1)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution. The Court ruled that the right to life is not absolute and that the Constitution permits judicial execution as a lawful penalty. It further held that the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment does not extend to punishment prescribed by law, thereby affirming the death penalty’s constitutionality in Nigeria.
This case is Nigeria’s locus classicus on the death penalty and remains the definitive authority on its constitutionality. Its importance lies in clarifying that, under Nigerian constitutional law, capital punishment does not inherently violate fundamental human rights. However, the ruling has significant implications: it has paved the way for an expansion of capital offences and the continued imposition of mandatory death sentences without judicial discretion. Critics argue that the Court’s narrow interpretation of human dignity and failure to engage deeply with comparative and international human rights standards weakens protections against cruel punishment. Moreover, the decision has contributed to the growth of death row populations and has been criticized for not addressing the broader human rights concerns linked to the death penalty, such as the conditions of detention and fair trial guarantees.

In essence, while Onuoha Kalu settled the legal question of the death penalty’s constitutionality in Nigeria, it left unresolved tensions about the death penalty’s morality, proportionality, and compliance with evolving human rights norms. The case underscores the need for legislative and judicial reform to better balance criminal justice objectives with human rights protections in Nigeria.

Sources

1. Onuoha Kalu v The State (SC 24/1996) [1998] NGSC 7 (18 December 1998) (Supreme Court of Nigeria) https://www.hbriefs.com/sc/onuoha-kalu-v-the-state-1998-sc/ accessed 2 July 2025.
2. IGUH JSC, ‘Onuoha Kalu v The State (1998) LLJR-SC’ LawGlobal Hub (27 April 2023) https://www.lawglobalhub.com/onuoha-kalu-v-the-state-1998-lljr-sc/ accessed 2 July 2025.
3. Badejogbin, ‘Onuoha Kalu v The State and flaws in Nigeria’s death penalty’ African Human Rights Law Journal (2018) https://www.ahrlj.up.ac.za/badejogbin-o accessed 2 July 2025.
4. Onuoha v The State (Supreme Court of Nigeria, SC 8/1988) vLex Nigeria https://ng.vlex.com/vid/onuoha-v-the-state-915374460 accessed 2 July 2025.
5. A A Oba, ‘Capital Punishment, the Death Row Phenomenon and the Supreme Court of Nigeria: Onuoha Kalu vs. The State [1998] 12 S.C.N.J. 1’ (Faculty of Law, University of Zimbabwe, 1999) https://ir.uz.ac.zw/xmlui/handle/10646/2258 accessed 2 July 2025.
6. Kalu v The State (SC 24/1996) [1998] NGSC 7 (18 December 1998) NigeriaLII https://nigerialii.org/akn/ng/judgment/ngsc/1998/7/eng@1998-12-18 accessed 2 July 2025.
7. Badejogbin, ‘Chapter Badejogbin 2 2018 – Onuoha Kalu v The State and flaws in Nigeria’s death penalty’ (University of Lagos, 2018) https://www.studocu.com/row/document/university-of-lagos/human-rights-law-2/chapter-badejogbin-2-2018/81245925 accessed 2 July 2025.
8. Onuoha Kalu v The State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt 585) 551, cited in University of Lagos thesis https://ir.unilag.edu.ng/bitstreams/b65eada2-fdd1-4292-9b5d-a139fc0e5939/download accessed 2 July 2025.
9. ‘Death penalty and the legality of execution by hanging and firing’ Nigerian Law Guru (November 2024) https://nigerianlawguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DEATH-PENALTY-AND-THE-LEGALITY-OF-EXECUTION.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.