By Fresh Facts Magazine –
Abuja — A heavy pall of grief, anger and uncertainty has settled over Nigeria’s National Assembly as senators confront one of the most contentious security debates in recent years: whether executing kidnappers will save the nation—or deepen its wounds.
Against the backdrop of relentless abductions across the country—schoolchildren seized from classrooms, farmers dragged from fields, commuters kidnapped on highways now synonymous with death—lawmakers have pushed forward a proposal many see as a decisive response to a spiralling crisis. But Nigeria’s justice sector and human rights community are warning that the move could prove dangerously counterproductive.
At the centre of the controversy is a proposed amendment to the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, seeking to classify kidnapping and hostage-taking as acts of terrorism and prescribe the death penalty for offenders. The amendment, sponsored by Senate Leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, would extend capital punishment beyond kidnappers to include financiers, informants, harbourers, transporters and logistics providers.
During plenary debate earlier in the month, the Senate overwhelmingly supported the proposal. Senate President Godswill Akpabio described kidnapping as an existential threat to the Nigerian state. Senators across party lines echoed public frustration, arguing that extreme crimes demanded extreme punishment.
Former Edo State Governor, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, dismissed deradicalisation programmes as ineffective, insisting that “terrorists understand only one language.” Senator Orji Uzor Kalu spoke emotionally of widows and violated girls, while Senator Victor Umeh called for scrutiny of banks allegedly facilitating ransom payments. Minority Leader, Senator Abba Moro, declared that Nigeria could no longer tolerate being held hostage by criminal gangs.
Politically, it was an easy moment to be tough.
However, the mood shifted dramatically at a public hearing convened by the Senate Joint Committees on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters; National Security and Intelligence; and Interior. There, an unusual alignment emerged: nearly all major justice, legal and human rights institutions spoke in firm opposition to the death penalty proposal.
Leading the resistance was the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN). While acknowledging the scale of the kidnapping crisis, he warned that mandatory capital punishment could backfire.
“Though emotionally appealing, the death penalty risks creating what may be described as a ‘martyrdom effect’,” Fagbemi told lawmakers. In terror-related contexts, he argued, executions can validate criminal narratives, fuel recruitment and provoke cycles of retaliatory violence.
The Attorney-General also raised serious diplomatic and operational concerns. Nigeria’s counterterrorism efforts depend heavily on international cooperation, including intelligence sharing, financial tracking and extradition. Many partner countries have abolished the death penalty and will not extradite suspects who may face execution.
“This could unintentionally turn other countries into safe havens for terror suspects and financiers,” Fagbemi warned, undermining Nigeria’s own security architecture.
He further pointed to Nigeria’s long-standing de facto moratorium on executions. Death sentences are routinely imposed, but rarely carried out, resulting in overcrowded death rows and prolonged incarceration that risks further radicalisation within correctional facilities.
“Our problem is not that punishments are not severe enough,” he said. “It is that arrests are uncertain, investigations are weak and prosecutions are slow.”
Fagbemi advocated life imprisonment without parole for the most egregious cases, arguing that certainty of arrest and conviction is a far stronger deterrent than symbolic severity.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reinforced this position, cautioning that expanding capital punishment within a criminal justice system plagued by investigative and prosecutorial deficiencies significantly increases the risk of irreversible miscarriages of justice.
While acknowledging the Senate’s intent to curb violent crime, the Commission stressed that any law must comply with constitutional safeguards and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations. It called for a mandatory human rights impact assessment of the bill before passage, warning that once an execution is carried out, no remedy exists for error.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) focused its critique on legal precision. The association argued that kidnapping, while heinous, is not automatically terrorism under international or domestic law. A blanket classification, it warned, risks distorting criminal jurisprudence and creating conflicts with existing state anti-kidnapping laws.
The NBA recommended limiting terrorism charges to kidnapping linked to organised criminal or terrorist networks or acts intended to intimidate the public or coerce government. It urged lawmakers to abandon mandatory death sentences in favour of graduated penalties that reflect intent, role, harm and outcome.
Judicial discretion, the NBA stressed, is essential to justice—not a sign of weakness. Sentences could range from long-term imprisonment to life sentences, with capital punishment, if retained at all, reserved strictly for the most extreme and aggravated circumstances.
Within the hearing, some senators also expressed concern about oversimplification. Senator Ekong Sampson argued that criminal law must distinguish between attempted kidnapping, cases where victims are released unharmed and incidents ending in death.
An international perspective was offered by Prof. Uchenna Emelonye, former United Nations human rights envoy and Professor of Human Rights Law at Bournemouth University. He described the unified opposition as extraordinary.
“This is not ideological posturing,” Emelonye said. “It is empirical reality.”
Global evidence, he argued, shows that the death penalty does not deter kidnapping. Countries that have made progress, he noted, invested in intelligence-led policing, effective investigations, speedy trials, border control, arms regulation and victim-centred justice.
Expanding capital punishment within a fragile system, he warned, risks wrongful convictions without delivering measurable security gains.
At the close of the hearing, Senate committees pledged to review all submissions carefully before submitting their final report. Yet the political dilemma remains unresolved.
Each new kidnapping fuels public outrage and intensifies demands for harsh punishment. For lawmakers under pressure, the gallows offer the appearance of decisive action. But Nigeria’s justice community warns that laws born of rage rarely produce lasting safety.
As the Senate weighs its next move, Nigeria stands at a crossroads: between swift, symbolic retribution that may satisfy anger but invite injustice and isolation, or the slower, harder work of reforming policing, intelligence, prosecution and prisons.
The question haunting the legislature—and the nation—remains stark: will Nigeria choose the comfort of vengeance, or the discipline of justice?
