There have been renewed calls for state governors to sign execution warrants for convicted offenders sentenced to death for grievous crimes such as murder, armed robbery, terrorism, and other heinous offences. These calls are coming at a time when Nigeria is grappling with banditry, terrorism, kidnapping, and other violent crimes that have claimed thousands of innocent lives and left many communities devastated.

Nigeria’s death row population was reportedly the largest in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2018, with at least 2,000 inmates awaiting execution. This was contained in a report referenced by Cornell Law School.

Recent figures, however, indicate that the number has risen significantly. According to the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS), there are currently 3,688 inmates on death row across correctional facilities in the country.

The Acting Comptroller-General of the NCoS, Sylvester Nwakuche, disclosed this during his screening before the Senate Committee on Interior. The revelation has once again brought the issue of capital punishment and the reluctance of governors to sign execution warrants into public discourse.

The death penalty remains one of the most contentious issues in criminal justice administration. While many countries have abolished it, Nigeria continues to retain it as a lawful punishment for certain offences, including murder, armed robbery, and terrorism-related crimes. Courts continue to impose death sentences where the law prescribes such punishment, yet executions have become increasingly rare.

At this point, one may be tempted to ask: since governors appear unwilling to discharge their responsibility of signing execution warrants, can correctional authorities simply proceed with the execution once all judicial processes have been exhausted and the courts have spoken?

The answer is an emphatic no.

The law is explicit on this matter. Section 371 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that where a sentence of death has been passed by a competent court, the execution cannot proceed until the governor signs the death warrant. It is as simple as ABCD. Regardless of the gravity of the offence, the finality of the judgment, or the length of time the convict has spent on death row, no execution can lawfully take place without the governor’s approval.

Not surprisingly, many governors are uncomfortable with this responsibility. Some have argued that the judge who sentenced the offender to death should also bear the responsibility of signing the execution warrant. At first glance, the argument appears reasonable. After all, it was the judge who heard the evidence, assessed the credibility of witnesses, and pronounced the sentence.

However, that argument quickly loses its force when one considers the same governors’ enthusiasm for exercising the constitutional prerogative of mercy. Section 212 of the Constitution empowers governors to grant pardons, reprieves, and commutations of sentences. Governors seldom complain about these powers. They readily embrace the carrot but recoil from the stick.

The administration of criminal justice requires both. Mercy has its place, but so does punishment. A justice system that is prepared to reward rehabilitation but unwilling to enforce lawful sanctions risks undermining public confidence in the rule of law.

Since the country’s return to democracy in 1999, only three governors have had the courage to sign death warrants. They are Ibrahim Shekarau of Kano State, Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State, and Godwin Obaseki of Edo State.

Shekarau signed death warrants for several inmates on death row in 2006. Oshiomhole followed suit in 2012, signing warrants for the execution of condemned inmates as part of efforts to address the growing population of prisoners on death row. Obaseki also signed death warrants that led to the execution of condemned inmates in Edo State.

By consistently favouring the carrot over the stick, governors may inadvertently be defeating the very purpose of justice. The consequence is a growing population of condemned inmates, congestion in correctional facilities, and increasing frustration among victims and their families, who often feel that justice has been delayed indefinitely.

Perhaps no Nigerian jurist captured the essence of justice better than the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa in Josiah v. The State. He observed:

“Justice is not a one-way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant only. Justice is not even a two-way traffic. It is really a three-way traffic: justice for the appellant accused of a heinous crime of murder, justice for the victim, the murdered man, the deceased, whose blood is crying out to heaven for vengeance and finally justice for society at large, the society whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the criminal act complained of.”

Justice Oputa’s timeless words remind us that the criminal justice system must strike a delicate balance. While the rights of the accused must be protected, the interests of victims and society must not be forgotten.

The bandits, terrorists, kidnappers, or whatever name we choose to call them, have committed unspeakable atrocities. Harrowing tales of their escapades abound. I read a story of a young corps member who was kidnapped and repeatedly raped. When the bandits contacted her father for ransom and gave her the phone to speak with him, she reportedly told him not to bother because even if the ransom was paid and she was released, she would commit suicide as she could not live with the trauma. She was eventually killed.

There are videos on social media showing bandits raping females, some of them underaged girls, alongside other harrowing tales that are difficult to comprehend. To say these people are inhumane is, to say the least, an understatement. Our governors should not think twice before signing the execution warrants of such individuals.

Aside from governors being unwilling to sign death warrants on moral grounds, they also cite human rights and international concerns. However, out of the 50 states in the United States of America, capital punishment remains legal in 27. Since 1976, over 1,660 executions have been carried out, according to available statistics. That is just America, the self-acclaimed headquarters of human rights.

Governors also premise their arguments on the perceived weaknesses in the administration of criminal justice. They fear being associated with the execution of an innocent person. This concern is understandable. However, if they believe that the process leading to the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of terrorists, bandits, or kidnappers was flawed, they can set up independent investigative panels to determine whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred, rather than leaving condemned inmates in perpetual limbo.

In some cases, criminal gangs have kidnapped innocent citizens and used them as bargaining chips to negotiate the release of their convicted colleagues from prison. Had these convicted criminals faced the full weight of the law, it would have sent a clear message that the same fate awaits those who engage in similar crimes. Instead, it sometimes appears as though society is engaged in a form of trade-by-barter with criminals.

This perhaps explains why many citizens are more pleased when terrorists or bandits are killed during operations than when they are arrested and taken to court. They already know the likely outcome. The journey into the forests and hideouts of these criminals is one of the most dangerous assignments undertaken by security personnel. One can therefore understand the frustration of officers who risk their lives to apprehend these criminals, only for the process to end with little or no consequence because governors do not want the blood of terrorists on their hands.

What amuses me about the religious arguments surrounding the signing of death warrants by governors is that all thirty-six state governors are either Christians or Muslims. None of them are pagans. Yet both Islam and Christianity recognise the concept of capital punishment under certain circumstances. What, then, makes governors believe that they are committing an unpardonable sin by signing death warrants for individuals who have committed indescribable atrocities?

Governors must summon the courage to sign death warrants. By doing so, they would be sending a clear message of zero tolerance for terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and other violent crimes. Citizens, too, must hold their governors accountable and ensure that they live up to their responsibilities.

I once told a friend that if I ever wanted to vie for public office, it would have to be governor of my state because citizens do not scrutinise governors nearly as much as they scrutinise the President. In Nigeria, all eyes are usually fixed on the centre. Do not be surprised if, after the President passes a bill creating state police and every state establishes its own police force, citizens will still criticise the President for not doing enough to safeguard lives and property within the states.

The governors cannot continue to enjoy the privileges of office while avoiding some of its most difficult responsibilities. Leadership demands courage, especially when the decisions to be made are unpopular. The law has vested governors with the authority to sign execution warrants, just as it has vested them with the power to grant mercy. They should not be eager to exercise one power while refusing to exercise the other.

Ultimately, justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. And as Justice Oputa reminded us, justice is not only for the accused but also for the victim and society at large.

Isah can be reached via lawcadet1@gmail.com