NationalMirror Politics of death warrant FELIX NWANERI July 2, 2013 FELIX NWANERI writes on the recent directive by President Goodluck Jonathan to state governors to sign execution warrants of death row prisoners despite Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international treaties Death sentence, as part of Nigeria’s penal laws, has always been a subject of controversy. Some have argued that it be retained, while others vehemently denounce it as being outdated and not in conformity with modern standards. This perhaps explains why few state governors have signed the death warrants of convicted criminals since the return of civilian rule in 1999. The last known executions were carried out in 2006, when seven men sentenced to death in Kano State were hanged in Kaduna, Jos and Enugu prisons. It was therefore surprising to many when President Goodluck Jonathan penultimate week called on state governors not to shy away from signing death sentences passed on convicted criminals. He said as leaders, the governors responsibilities include doing both the “sweet and the ugly part” as long as it is sanctioned by law. The President, who spoke at the Villa Chapel to commemorate this year’s Fathers’ Day celebration, expressed worry that discipline which used to be the hallmark of the family is gradually being eroded because of negative influence of modernism. His words: “These days, because of modern life, discipline is almost gone. Discipline can be in various forms. In the states, it could be admonition. Magistrate can just admonish and allow to go. From admonition to various forms of punishments, it could be imprisonment. The extreme is capital punishment. “In the case of capital punishment, the state governors will sign. Even governors sometimes find it difficult to sign. I have been telling the governors that they must sign because that is the law. The work we are doing have a very sweet part and a very ugly part and we must perform both. No matter how painful it is, it is part of their responsibilities.” Hardly had the President done with his instruction that rights groups and activists went to town, protesting the directive. Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), particularly faulted the order, saying: “Having not signed a single death warrant while he was the Bayelsa State governor, the President knows there are many factors which militate against the signing of death warrants by governors under a democratic dispensation. Unlike military governors who were trained to kill, civilian governors are usually reluctant to sign death warrants of convicted and sentenced to death. When Nigeria was under military rule there was no right of appeal from special military tribunals set up by military dictators to try people charged with treason, armed robbery and other capital offences. “But the situation is totally different under a democratic dispensation where anyone sentenced to death is entitled to the constitutional right of appeal.” Falana added that the call made by the President did not take cognisance of the moratorium placed on the death penalty in 2006 by the United Nations. “As a responsible member of the international community, Nigeria has so far honoured the terms of the moratorium. Indeed, it is on the basis of the moratorium and the recommendations of the Prerogative of Mercy Committees of the states that a number of condemned prisoners have had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment by some state governors. “I will therefore like to call on President Jonathan to withdraw the directive for the immediate execution of condemned prisoners. However, if the directive is carried out in utter violation of the constitutional right of appeal of the over 900 convicts and they are killed before the determination of their appeals, it will be tantamount to crime against humanity for which the President may be charged and tried before the International Criminal Court.” Falana noted that instead of asking for the blood of the victims of socioeconomic injustice in the land, President Jonathan should declare a state of emergency on official corruption which has become a component part of the Transformation Agenda, saying: “It has become immoral to continue to execute victims of official corruption while the perpetrators of the heinous crime are allowed to enjoy their loot under dubious plea bargain deals arranged for them by the Federal Government.” Despite the dissent, Governor Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State, in a rare display of courage went ahead to sign the death warrants of four convicts de-scribed as “unmanageable death row inmates” despite global appeal from human rights activists. The quartet, who have been hanged by officers of the Nigeria Prison Service in Edo State were convicted of crimes ranging from murder, rape to armed robbery. They include Chima Ejiofor, Daniel Nsofor, Osarenmwinda Aigbonkhan and Richard Igagu. The state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Henry Idahagbon, who confirmed their execution, said they were convicted 15 years ago, noting that the Edo State Government had nothing to do with the execution. He said: “These people were convicted 15 years ago. I was only informed this night (June 24) by the prison authorities that they had been hanged. One of them was convicted in Kaduna, while their matters had gone up to the Supreme Court and came back to the Federal High Court, Benin. It really has nothing to do with us as a government. “The governor only signed the death sentence of two, while previous governors signed that of two others. The information I got was that they went to the Federal High Court, which refused their plea for leniency and I believe what the prison authorities did was to execute them immediately after they left the court. Edo State government has no hand in it. I was only informed that it had been done.” In the suit before the Federal High Court, the death row prisoners had contended that to execute them after over 16 years of trauma, suspense and imminent death would amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore asked the court to order Oshiomhole to commute their death sentences to terms of imprisonment. Expectedly, condemnations have trailed the development with Amnesty International, AI saying “the executions mark a sudden, brutal return to the use of the death penalty in Nigeria, a truly dark day for human rights in the country.” Lucy Freeman, AI’s deputy director for Africa said: “We again urge the Nigerian authorities to stop all executions immediately and return to the moratorium on executions in the country. We oppose the death penalty in all cases without exception, as it is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.” According to AI’s Death Sentences and Executions 2012 report, Nigeria sentenced 56 people to death last year, and approximately 1,000 people are reportedly on death row in the country. The European Union, EU, on its part said the act represents a break of a sevenyear moratorium on the death penalty and most regrettable setback to Nigeria’s human rights record, urging state governors to refrain from further signing of execution warrants of death row inmates. Speaking through its High Representative, Catherine Ashton, the EU noted that the execution went against the commitment repeatedly made by the Nigerian authorities most recently at the EU-Nigeria human rights dialogue held in Abuja in March and at the annual Ministerial meeting in Brussels in May, to maintain the de facto moratorium on executions. She was emphatic that “executions can never be justified.” Her words: “I reiterate the longstanding opposition of the European Union to the use of the death penalty and recall the importance of UN Resolutions calling for the establishment of a moratorium as a first step towards abolishing the death penalty.” “I urge the Nigerian authorities to refrain from further executions and urge state governors not to sign execution warrants. I call on Nigeria to join the strong abolitionist trend which prevails on the African continent. As a first step towards abolition, I strongly encourage Nigeria to amend her legislation in order to end the use of the death penalty as sole sentence for a number of crimes,” Ashton added. The question against the backdrop of the condemnations is: Was Oshiomhole wrong to have signed the death warrants even when the country’s law recognises capital punishment for heinous crimes like the one committed by the foursome? A political school of thought is of the view that the Edo State governor has not acted ultra vires, as Section 33 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that “Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.” Again, section 12(1) of the same Constitution provides that “No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.” These imply that where any of the treaties has not been enacted by the National Assembly, it only has the force of persuasion and not law. And even where the National Assembly has taken further steps to enact the above treaties into law, such law still remain invalid by the virtue of section 1 (3) of the Constitution which provides that “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” This perhaps explains Oshiomhole’s standpoint. He averred that the convicts deserved to die, and that he has no apology over his stance which he said was in exercise of his duty as governor. Defending his position in a recent interview, Oshiomhole said even with the choice of exercising his prerogative of mercy on the convicts, he had chosen not to do so, given the nature of the offence of Agbomien and Nsofor whose convictions, he pointed out, were upheld by the Supreme Court. He said: “God can have mercy on them, but I am unable, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, namely, killing and dismembering the body of your victim and wanting to sell some of the parts and you ask me in the name of human rights to let him live. I am convinced that those people need to die. In the interest of the society, they need to die under the law. The rule of law is different from resolutions by some NGOs and nations are not governed by NGO resolutions. “As a governor, I subscribed to an oath of office which says that I shall obey the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, including all laws without fear or favour. I cannot be afraid to sign the death warrant of a man who has been found guilty of murder. “I have no apologies; I didn’t sentence them to death. I am not the one who accused them; they were accused by those they harassed. They have been tried, they have taken advantage of the appellate courts all the way to the Supreme Court and they were found guilty. The law also says that having been found guilty and sentenced to death, the governor could exercise prerogative of mercy, but I say that I have no mercy on those who kill. Why should you compel me to have mercy on those who kill? “We must have a balanced view of human rights in which the rights, not only of the man they killed, but the right of his relations and much more importantly, to send a clear message to would-be murderers, that when you kill a human being and you are caught, you are likely to die. If you don’t want to die, then abstain from killing. If criminals abstain from killing, fewer people would be killed by robbers and other murderers and that is the truth. If you tell me that the man killed and has a right to life, I refuse that. Amnesty should not be hypocritical about it.” Analysts who shared the governor’s views were quick to add that death penalty deters crime, prevent recidivism and that it is an appropriate form of punishment for the crime of murder. They also argued that even the Mosaic Law recognises death sentence by the rule of “eye for eye and tooth for tooth.” They justified their position with the fact that about 90 countries still have the death sentence as part of their criminal laws. The United States, Russia, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, India, Egypt, United Arab Emirates top the list. According to this political school, a killer should be killed. It therefore called on all governors to exhibit Oshiomhole’s courage and sustain the ongoing effort to confront impunity to sign death warrants. Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), who corroborated this view, said last Thursday that governors are under statutory duty to sign death warrants of criminals condemned to death by courts of competent jurisdiction which are piling up on their desks. The minister, who spoke in Abuja at the 2013 ministerial platform, noted that while the Federal Government was aware of the increasing global campaign against capital punishment, its hands were tied because “offences that carry the capital punishment in the country are state offences created by state laws.” Adoke said that except such state laws, which created the capital offences and the death penalty, were amended, the Federal Government had no powers to unilaterally abolish the death penalty. He added that as far as the law stands, criminals on the death row in prison formations do not enjoy prerogative of mercy from the executive. The AGF stressed that serving governors could not shy away from performing their constitutional duties, noting that death penalty remained part of the nation’s laws and is still active and that the global campaign against it had not metamorphosed into its abolition. Also, Foreign Affairs Minister, Amb. Olugbenga Ashiru, said that the Nigeria’s criminal code being condemned by the Western countries was handed down by them. Ashiru insisted that Oshiomhole acted within his constitutional responsibilities. “The constitution is supreme, and the criminal code we follow was handed down to us by the colonial powers at the time. So until the status books are reviewed, until the constitution is reviewed, there is nothing anybody can do. The governor acted within his constitutional powers,” he said. Chief Orientation and Mobilisation Officer of the National Orientation Agency, NOA, Matthew Odonor, who also spoke on the issue at the weekend, described the presidential directive as beneficial to the country. According to him, signing of death warrants would among other things help to decongest prisons in the country. Odonor said the country’s legal system recognised death penalty and so it must continue to be practiced, adding that the NOA would soon begin orientating citizens of the country on the importance of maintaining death warrants and other forms of capital punishments. To him, every country has its cultural values, norms, and laws enshrined in its legal system to preserve and regulate the behaviours of every member of the society. “We have value for human life and our law says that whoever kills must be killed. This is just the position of our legal system and we should not shy away from doing the right thing. I believe that violent crimes will reduce when those in charge of enforcing our laws start doing what is expected of them.” But opponents of death sentence on the contrary argued that it does not deter criminals more than life imprisonment; it violates human rights and leads to executions of some who are wrongfully convicted. They further argued that Nigeria being a member of some international organisations has adopted some treaties which make death penalty outdated and not in tune with present day international realities. These treaties recognise the right of individuals to life. Examples of such treaties include Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, which recognises each person’s right to life. Articles 4 and 5 of African Charter also reinforce this inalienable right to life. Nigeria also ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which provides life imprisonment as the maximum penalty that the court can impose. The Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights described this right as: the right to life is a fundamental right in any society irrespective of its degree of development or the type of culture which characterizes it. While the argument on capital punishment will continue to rage, the fact remains that there may never be any form of punishment that people will not criticize because lives are involved. However, as it stands, those who disprove of capital punishment in Nigeria would be wasting their time and energy until the National Assembly repeals it from the country’s statute books.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:23:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015