By Mary Agidi

Nigeria has not carried out executions of condemned inmates since 2016, despite a large number of death sentences. This is largely due to the unwillingness of state governors, who are legally required to sign execution warrants before sentences can be carried out. Many governors have refused to do so, resulting in a de facto moratorium on executions.

In 2013, while serving as Governor of Edo State, Senator Adams Oshiomhole signed death warrants for condemned inmates. His action, however, was criticised in some quarters.

According to reports, only three governors have signed death warrants since Nigeria’s return to democracy. In 2006, former Governor Ibrahim Shekarau of Kano State reportedly approved the execution of about seven inmates. Adams Oshiomhole later signed warrants for two prisoners who were subsequently hanged. Governor Godwin Obaseki, also of Edo State, signed death warrants for three inmates in 2016, and the executions were carried out shortly after.

Oshiomhole, who currently represents Edo North Senatorial District in the Senate, appears to remain one of the most vocal advocates for the enforcement of the death penalty for offenders of serious crimes. In November 2025, he condemned the decision of a High Court judge who sentenced an ISWAP commander, Hussaini Ismaila, to 20 years’ imprisonment instead of the death penalty. A Federal High Court in Abuja had commuted Ismaila’s death sentence to 20 years on November 19 after he pleaded guilty and showed remorse.


Nigeria’s Legal Framework on the Death Penalty

Nigeria retains the death penalty under its criminal and penal codes at both federal and state levels. Capital offences include murder, treason, armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism, and other serious crimes punishable by death under the law.

In some northern states applying Sharia law, additional offences such as rape, adultery, sodomy, and apostasy are also punishable by death.

Nigerian law provides for multiple methods of execution, including hanging and shooting, and historically, under certain Sharia provisions, beheading or stoning—though many of these methods have not been used in recent years, according to Amnesty International.

The Legal Ideas Forum reports that over 3,000 inmates are currently on death row in Nigeria, with nearly all remaining alive. This situation has led to prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma for condemned prisoners.


International Law and Nigeria’s Treaty Obligations

Several international human rights standards address the death penalty, which some countries are beginning to observe. One such instrument is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Nigeria in 1993. The ICCPR recognises the right to life and stipulates that the death penalty, where legal, should be applied only to the “most serious crimes” and with strict procedural safeguards.

Another relevant instrument is the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which commits state parties to the abolition of the death penalty. Nigeria has not ratified this protocol.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also guarantees the right to life, though it does not explicitly abolish the death penalty, instead encouraging respect for fundamental human rights.


Fair Trial and Due Process

International instruments such as Article 14 of the ICCPR require that defendants facing capital punishment receive full fair trial guarantees, including legal representation and the right to appeal.

However, reports, including those published by the Journal of Law and Criminal Justice, indicate that many death penalty cases in Nigeria fall short of these standards. Amnesty International has documented historic cases where individuals were executed without exhausting appeal processes, thereby violating due process.

Tension Between Domestic Practice and International Standards

International standards restrict the death penalty to the “most serious crimes,” generally interpreted as intentional killing. Nigeria’s application of the death penalty to non-lethal and non-violent offences—particularly under Sharia law—conflicts with this norm.

Additionally, many Nigerian laws prescribe mandatory death sentences, leaving judges with no discretion. Critics argue that this violates international human rights jurisprudence and principles of fair sentencing.

Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have repeatedly criticised Nigeria’s retentionist stance, calling for abolition or, at minimum, an official moratorium. They argue that capital punishment has failed as a deterrent and carries a significant risk of wrongful execution.

Recent legislative proposals seeking to expand the scope of the death penalty, such as within anti-terrorism laws, have also attracted criticism for contravening Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.

Nigeria’s De Facto Moratorium and Reform Efforts

Although the death penalty remains legal, executions are rarely carried out, resulting in a de facto moratorium. Civil society advocates argue that this should be formalised to align Nigeria with global abolitionist trends.

Calls for Abolition

Civil society groups and legal reformers are advocating for an official moratorium on executions, ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, and commutation of existing death sentences to life imprisonment. Some governors, including Ondo State, have begun adopting this approach.

In Ondo State, within the two years of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa’s tenure, he has exercised the prerogative of mercy to pardon several inmates and commute some death sentences to life imprisonment.

During his swearing-in ceremony in February 2024, he pardoned 43 inmates. In September of the same year, he granted clemency to 117 convicts. Another 40 inmates were pardoned to mark his 60th birthday in January 2025, while an additional 77 inmates received clemency at the start of 2026.

Through the application of the prerogative of mercy, some inmates were released outright, others had their sentences reduced, while those on death row had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment.

This practice aligns with the ICCPR, which some governors prefer over executions, despite capital punishment remaining constitutionally valid.

Beyond governors’ reluctance to sign death warrants, recent high-profile cases show judges increasingly opting for life imprisonment rather than death sentences, reflecting growing judicial awareness of international perspectives within existing legal frameworks.

Calls for the revision of Nigeria’s penal laws are further justified by concerns that judges, being human, are prone to errors in judgment.

Additionally, corruption and compromised investigations within the police and judicial systems may lead to the wrongful conviction of innocent persons.

Governors, constitutionally empowered to sign death warrants upon the advice of their State Advisory Councils on the Prerogative of Mercy, are also increasingly reluctant to do so due to religious, moral, and ethical considerations.

Globally, there is a growing trend towards abolition or moratoria on the death penalty, as reflected in United Nations General Assembly resolutions and the increasing number of countries ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.

Several African countries have abolished capital punishment or established moratoria, shaping expectations for Nigeria’s alignment with regional human rights norms.

Reports indicate that 25 African countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 16 practise de facto abolition, while 14—including Nigeria—remain retentionist.

Speaking on the issue, the Alternate Chairperson of the Litigation Unit of the African Women Lawyers Association (AWLA), Mrs Abiodun Kolawole, said the debate on the abolition of the death sentence in Nigeria has persisted for decades, noting that capital punishment has not reduced crime within the criminal justice system.

“We have many countries that are still retentionist, of which Nigeria is one, while others are abolitionist, meaning death sentences have been converted to life imprisonment. Life imprisonment does not necessarily mean incarceration for life. Each country has its own computation, and in Nigeria, this varies from state to state,” she said.

On changing execution methods, Kolawole noted that the United States introduced electrocution in the 19th century as an alternative to hanging, but later replaced it with lethal injection, with the last execution carried out in 2021.

She added that the Philippines used electrocution from 1924 to 1976 before abolishing it due to its severe effects.

“Nigeria can adopt lethal injection or life imprisonment to replace the death penalty. The world is moving forward. Nigeria cannot remain stagnant. This is a clarion call for reawakening from our slumber,” she said.

Also contributing, the Founder of DOHS Care Foundation, Mrs Ololade Ajayi, lamented that death sentences are rarely implemented in Nigeria. “I personally support death sentences for femicide perpetrators, but it is useless if it is not implemented,” she said.

She questioned why governors are reluctant to sign death warrants, given the gravity of offences committed by death row inmates, and expressed concern about the possibility of such individuals returning to society.

Ajayi also criticised recent debates in the National Assembly on imposing death sentences for bandits and kidnappers, arguing that terrorists or individuals responsible for multiple killings should not be allowed to live.

She aligned with Kolawole’s position on changing execution methods, suggesting that if governors are uncomfortable signing death warrants by hanging, alternative modern methods could be adopted. “By all means, they should get rid of the criminals”, she added.

Overall, Nigeria’s retention of the death penalty and its inconsistent application continue to diverge from evolving international human rights standards.
Although executions have not occurred in recent years, the continued existence of capital punishment for a wide range of offences, coupled with concerns over due process, places Nigeria at odds with global abolitionist trends and certain international treaty obligations.

Nevertheless, ongoing debates within Nigeria’s legal and civil society spaces reflect sustained engagement with reform efforts and the pursuit of alignment with international human rights norms.