Human rights activist and legal practitioner, Chief Malcolm Omirhobo, has opposed calls for the abolition of the death penalty in Nigeria, insisting that global activism cannot override the country’s constitutional provisions.
In a rejoinder to an earlier publication credited to Avocats Sans Frontières France (Lawyers Without Borders) in The Guardian Nigeria, Omirhobo said advocacy, while legitimate in a democracy, must not supplant Nigeria’s constitutional choices.
According to him, Nigeria is a sovereign constitutional republic and under Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution is supreme and binding on all authorities and persons, adding that no non-governmental organisation, whether local or foreign, can replace Nigeria’s constitutional framework with external preferences.
Omirhobo maintained that capital punishment was expressly recognised by the Constitution, noting that Section 33(1), while protecting the right to life, permits deprivation of life in execution of a court sentence for a criminal offence. He described this provision as deliberate constitutional design rather than a loophole.
On claims that the death penalty is cruel, inhuman, and degrading, Omirhobo said such descriptions reflected moral advocacy language and not Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence, adding that capital punishment remained lawful, valid and enforceable until amended through lawful constitutional processes by Nigerians.
He further contended that fair trial rights and access to counsel are procedural safeguards and do not amount to arguments for abolishing substantive criminal sanctions. Nigeria, he said, could ensure competent defence in capital cases without relinquishing its authority to prescribe punishment for the gravest crimes.
Citing what he described as rising industrial-scale crimes, including aggravated kidnapping, terrorism, mass murder and armed banditry, Omirhobo said public policy must reflect Nigeria’s security realities. He referenced Section 14(2)(b) of the constitution, which places the security and welfare of the people as the primary purpose of government, arguing that deterrence remains necessary where crimes threaten national survival.
He also rejected claims that international practice uniformly favours abolition, stating that several major sovereign states, including the United States in some states, China, India and Japan, retain and apply the death penalty. Nigeria, he said, was exercising sovereign discretion rather than acting as an outlier.
While welcoming calls for improved funding of the Legal Aid Council, Omirhobo said such measures were irrelevant to the abolition debate, stressing that strengthening defence representation would not invalidate lawful punishment.
He concluded that criminal justice policy must be determined by Nigerians through Nigerian institutions accountable to Nigerian victims, adding that advocacy should not be used to weaken lawful deterrence in a country facing violent crime. Nigeria, he said, owed its first duty not to international advocacy networks but to its citizens.
