By Chief (Barr.) Malcolm Omirhobo
LAGOS DECEMBER 23RD (NEWSRANGERS)-This rejoinder is issued in direct response to the collective opposition expressed by the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Nigerian Bar Association, the National Human Rights Commission, and Professor Uchenna Emelonye against the proposed prescription of the death penalty for aggravated kidnapping.
I reject their positions seriatim, for the reasons set out below.
REJOINDER TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION:
The position of the Attorney-General that capital punishment may be “strategically counterproductive” and weaken international cooperation is constitutionally misplaced.
The Attorney-General owes his primary allegiance to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not to extradition sensitivities of foreign jurisdictions.
Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution imposes a non-delegable duty on the Nigerian State to prioritise the security and welfare of Nigerians, not the convenience of international partners.
Extradition challenges cannot override Nigeria’s sovereign right to legislate against existential crimes. A legal regime that allows kidnappers to exploit Nigeria as a low-risk, high-reward jurisdiction is itself a security failure.
Furthermore, the argument that executions create “martyrdom effects” imports foreign extremist psychology into Nigeria’s criminal justice discourse without empirical grounding in Nigeria’s kidnapping reality, which is overwhelmingly ransom-driven, commercial, and organised, not ideological.
REJOINDER TO THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (NBA) :
The NBA’s call for discretionary sentencing and graduated penalties ignores Nigeria’s lived judicial experience. Discretion has not protected Nigerians. Discretion has produced:Lenient sentences,Endless adjournments, Plea bargaining abuse, And negotiated justice for terror-level crimes. Mandatory punishment exists in criminal jurisprudence precisely for offences that threaten the survival of the State. Kidnapping in Nigeria is no longer a mere “criminal offence”; it is systemic terror, and the NBA’s attempt to downgrade it reflects professional caution divorced from public reality.
REJOINDER TO THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC)
The NHRC’s insistence on a “human rights impact assessment” grounded in international norms is constitutionally subordinate. Nigeria is governed by its Constitution, not by international best-practice manuals. Human rights cannot be interpreted selectively to protect perpetrators while ignoring: The right to life of victims, The right to security of communities, And the collective right of society to survive. A State that refuses to impose proportionate punishment for mass kidnapping violates the human rights of millions of law-abiding Nigerians.
Human rights do not mean impunity.
REJOINDER TO PROFESSOR UCHENNA EMELONYE – Uchenna Emelonye
Professor Emelonye’s assertion that “expanding the death penalty will not stop kidnapping” is
academic opinion, not constitutional law. The Constitution does not require the State to prove perfect deterrence before legislating punishment. It requires the State to act reasonably and proportionately in defence of life and order.
His argument that systemic weaknesses, rather than punishment, are the root cause of kidnapping is not mutually exclusive with capital sanctions. Institutional reform and maximum punishment can and must coexist.
To argue otherwise is to suggest that Nigeria must first perfect its institutions before protecting its citizens, a proposition unknown to constitutional governance.
ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND INVESTIGATIVE GAPS
The risk of wrongful conviction is not an argument against punishment, but an argument for: Better investigation, Faster trials, Stronger evidentiary standards.
It is constitutionally indefensible to lower punishment for grave crimes simply because the State has administrative weaknesses.
KIDNAPPING AS TERRORISM IS LEGALLY SOUND
Kidnapping in Nigeria today is: Organised, Armed, Cross-border, Designed to intimidate populations, And capable of destabilising governance.
That squarely meets the legal definition of terrorism under Nigerian law and comparative jurisprudence. The National Assembly is therefore within its constitutional powers to prescribe the highest penalty.
CONCLUSION
The opposition by the AGF, NBA, NHRC, and Professor Emelonye reflects institutional caution, not constitutional command. Nigeria is confronting an existential security emergency. In such moments, the Constitution demands decisive state action, not rhetorical restraint.
Capital punishment for aggravated kidnapping is: Constitutionally lawful, Morally defensible,
And strategically necessary. Any position that privileges the comfort of kidnappers over the lives of Nigerians fails the constitutional test.
A human right activist, Chief (Barr.) Malcolm Omirhobo writes from Lagos
For media advert placement, events coverage, media consultancy and further inquiries please WhatsApp 2348023773039 or email: labakevwe@yahoo.com
