The Ultimate Question: Deconstructing the Effectiveness and Ethics of the Death Penalty as a Deterrent in Nigeria

The death penalty, or capital punishment, remains a contentious issue globally, with debates often revolving around its purported effectiveness as a deterrent against serious crimes and the profound ethical questions it raises. In Nigeria, a country where capital punishment is still enshrined in law for various offences, this debate takes on particular significance. This article examines whether the death penalty effectively deters crime and evaluates its ethical challenges, drawing on Nigerian legal frameworks, case law, and scholarly perspectives. It argues that while the death penalty may have a limited deterrent effect, its ethical concerns—particularly risks of miscarriage of justice and violation of human rights—undermine its legitimacy.

Cultural and Historical Influences

Nigeria’s approach to capital punishment is also shaped by its pre-colonial and colonial history. Indigenous ethnic groups such as the Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa had distinct punitive traditions, often prescribing death for serious crimes within their customary laws. The 1914 amalgamation of Northern and Southern protectorates under British colonial rule introduced a unified legal system that incorporated English common law principles alongside local customs. This hybrid legal heritage explains the coexistence of multiple legal codes today and contributes to the complexity of death penalty application in Nigeria. The Nigerian Constitution explicitly recognizes the death penalty under Section 33(1), which guarantees the right to life but permits its deprivation “in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.” This constitutional provision affirms the legality of capital punishment, distinguishing Nigeria from jurisdictions where the right to life is absolute

Legal Framework for the Death Penalty in Nigeria

In Nigeria, the death penalty is authorised under several statutes. Section 33(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) permits deprivation of life pursuant to a court’s sentence for a criminal offence. The Criminal Code Act (applicable in Southern Nigeria) prescribes death for murder (s 319) and treason (s 37), while the Penal Code Act (applicable in Northern Nigeria) mandates it for offences like culpable homicide punishable with death (s 221). The Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 2004 also imposes capital punishment for armed robbery (s 1(2)). Judicial pronouncements have upheld these provisions. In Kalu v State [1998] 13 NWLR (Pt 583) 531, the Nigerian Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, holding that it does not violate the right to life when imposed through due process. Similarly, in Okoro v State [1988] 5 NWLR (Pt 94) 255, the court rejected arguments that the death penalty constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment under international human rights standards. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty. In Onuoha Kalu v State, the apex court affirmed that capital punishment does not violate the constitutional right to life or human dignity (as guaranteed under Sections 33 and 34 of the 1999 Constitution). This decision remains the authoritative legal position, reinforcing the death penalty’s entrenched status in Nigerian law.

Deconstructing the Effectiveness and Ethics of the Death Penalty as a Deterrent in Nigeria

The death penalty, or capital punishment, remains a contentious issue globally, with debates often revolving around its purported effectiveness as a deterrent against serious crimes and the profound ethical questions it raises. In Nigeria, a country where capital punishment is still enshrined in law for various offences, this debate takes on particular significance. This article critically examines the effectiveness and ethical implications of the death penalty as a deterrent, drawing on empirical evidence, legal principles, and the Nigerian context. The primary utilitarian argument for the death penalty is its alleged capacity to deter potential offenders from committing capital crimes. The theory posits that the fear of execution will outweigh the desire to commit such heinous acts, thereby reducing crime rates. Proponents argue that the finality of death serves as a uniquely potent warning, a more severe punishment than mere imprisonment, no matter how long.

However, decades of research across various jurisdictions have consistently failed to provide conclusive evidence supporting this deterrent effect. In the United States, for instance, studies have shown that states with the death penalty do not have lower murder rates than those without it. In fact, some analysts suggest that homicide rates in death penalty states have sometimes been higher than in abolitionist states. Similarly, international comparisons, such as between Singapore (which retains the death penalty) and Hong Kong (which does not), reveal no clear difference in the trajectory of homicide rates, suggesting that factors other than capital punishment are at play.

In Nigeria, while the death penalty is a prescribed punishment for offences such as murder, armed robbery, and treason under the Criminal Code Act, the Penal Code Act, and some Sharia law jurisdictions, there is little to no empirical evidence to suggest it has a significant deterrent effect on crime. Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, speaking on the Nigerian context, has argued that the continued commission of capital offences, despite historical public executions of notorious criminals, demonstrates the lack of deterrence. This sentiment is echoed by many legal practitioners and human rights advocates in Nigeria, who insist that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Beyond the question of effectiveness, the death penalty is fraught with significant ethical considerations. The core of the ethical debate centers on the sanctity of human life, the risk of executing innocent individuals, and the potential for discriminatory application.

Firstly, the irreversible nature of the death penalty presents an undeniable moral dilemma: the risk of executing an innocent person. The Nigerian justice system, like many others, is not infallible. Cases of wrongful convictions, often due to flawed investigations, coerced confessions, or inadequate legal representation, are not uncommon. Once an execution is carried out, any subsequent discovery of innocence is tragically irreversible. This fundamental risk directly contradicts the principle of justice and due process. The Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019, Section 12(2), offers a glimmer of recognition for potential miscarriages, allowing for a chief judge to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment after 10 years if all appeal procedures are exhausted and the sentence has not been executed. However, this does not address the irreversible nature of an actual execution. The case of Bello v State [1992] 7 NWLR (Pt 254) 471 highlighted investigative lapses, where the accused was convicted based on circumstantial evidence later deemed insufficient. Globally, cases like that of Anthony Ray Hinton in the United States, exonerated after 30 years on death row, underscore this risk (Equal Justice Initiative, 2015) see also Onuoha v State [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt 103) 23, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for murder, emphasizing society’s need to punish grave offences. However, ethical concerns outweigh these arguments. The risk of executing the innocent, coupled with human rights violations, undermines the penalty’s moral legitimacy. Alternatives like life imprisonment without parole achieve similar retributive and deterrent effects without irreversibility. In Adeniji v State [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt 657) 1, the court acknowledged life imprisonment as a viable alternative, suggesting judicial flexibility.

Secondly, concerns about the discriminatory application of the death penalty are profound. Globally, and in Nigeria, there is a consistent pattern of the death penalty disproportionately affecting the poor, marginalized communities, and those who cannot afford adequate legal counsel. Socioeconomic status, ethnic background, and religious affiliation can often influence the likelihood of being sentenced to death. This raises serious questions about equality before the law and whether the death penalty truly serves justice or perpetuates systemic biases. The case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, sentenced to death for blasphemy under Sharia law in Kano, and the subsequent High Court ruling highlighting procedural flaws, underscores the dangers of such disparities.

Thirdly, the ethical debate touches upon the inherent inhumanity of taking a life, even by the state. Opponents argue that capital punishment violates the fundamental human right to life, as enshrined in international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Nigeria is a signatory.¹¹ Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) permits the deprivation of life “in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.” While this provision provides constitutional backing, it does not negate the broader human rights discourse on the morality of state-sanctioned killing. Many view the death penalty as cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, regardless of the severity of the crime committed.

Forth Human Rights and International Standards: The death penalty’s compatibility with human rights is contested. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Nigeria is a signatory, permits the death penalty only for the “most serious crimes” and with strict safeguards. However, the UN Human Rights Committee has urged abolition, citing its cruelty (UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 36, 2018). In Nigeria, execution methods like hanging, authorized under the Criminal Code Act (s 317), have been criticised as inhuman. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in International PEN v Nigeria (Communication 137/94), declared prolonged detention on death row as cruel and degrading, a practice common in Nigeria where inmates await execution for years.

Conclusion

The continued reliance on the death penalty in Nigeria rests on two fundamentally flawed premises: its presumed deterrent power and its ethical defensibility. Empirical evidence consistently refutes the notion of a unique deterrent effect, showing no significant crime reduction beyond that achieved by life imprisonment. The persistence of capital offenses in Nigeria, despite the legal provisions for execution, underscores this critical failing; the rational offender, central to deterrence theory, rarely aligns with the reality of impulsive or impaired criminal acts.

Ethically, capital punishment presents an undeniable moral dilemma. Its irreversibility carries the grave risk of executing innocent individuals—a tragic outcome amplified by the imperfections inherent in any justice system. Moreover, the documented disproportionate application of the death penalty against marginalized and economically vulnerable populations, observed both globally and in Nigeria, undermines the principles of equality and fairness. While Nigeria’s Constitution permits capital punishment, this legal allowance does not insulate it from the evolving international human rights consensus that increasingly views it as a cruel and inhumane practice.

Ultimately, clinging to the death penalty diverts focus from more effective and ethical approaches to crime and justice. True progress towards a safer and more just Nigerian society necessitates a shift towards strengthening law enforcement, enhancing judicial integrity, ensuring competent legal representation for all, and addressing the root causes of crime. As global trends lean towards abolition, a critical re-evaluation of capital punishment in Nigeria—moving towards a moratorium and eventual abolition—would align the nation with international best practices and underscore a profound commitment to human dignity and equitable justice.

CITATIONS

• National Research Council of the National Academies, Deterrence and the Death Penalty (National Academies Press 2012).
• Death Penalty Information Center, ‘Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States’ https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states accessed 5 July 2025.
• The Death Penalty Project, ‘Deterrence and the Death Penalty’ (2022) 2.
• Amnesty International, ‘Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?’ (2008) https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act500062008en.pdf accessed 5 July 2025.
• Criminal Code Act, Cap C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
• Penal Code Act, Cap P3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
• Donohue JJ and Wolfers J, ‘The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence’ (2018) National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No 24676
• Legal Defence and Assistance Project, ‘Death Row in Nigeria: A Report on Access to Justice’ (LEDAP 2020)
• Nigeria Police Force, Annual Report 2020 (Nigerian Police Force 2021)