The Weight of the Oath: Examining Governors’ Reluctance to Sign Death Sentences in Nigeria

By Fẹ́mi Akínṣọlá

In Nigeria, the death penalty remains a deeply contentious issue as the nation wrestles with escalating crime rates and the essence of justice. Article 1 of Nigeria’s Constitution charges the government with protecting and promoting the welfare of its citizens. However, this mandate is frequently undermined by the hesitance of state governors to sign death sentences, an act that is integral to their duties. Such reluctance not only erodes the oaths of office that these leaders swear to uphold but also diminishes the gravity of governance. This essay contends that the failure of governors to act decisively in signing death sentences reflects a broader malaise within Nigerian governance, with serious implications for justice and societal coherence.

Governors often veil their reluctance behind arguments citing human rights concerns and calls for a moratorium on the death penalty, positioning themselves as champions of compassion. Yet, these stances frequently serve as convenient excuses for avoiding accountability. The reality is that this inaction allows violent offenders to go unpunished, thereby fostering an environment of impunity. This failure not only renders justice elusive but also erodes public confidence in the legal system. Citizens begin to perceive the judicial process as ineffective, leading to a widespread belief that lawlessness will prevail without consequence.

Adding historical context to this dilemma, Nigeria’s experience with the death penalty has evolved significantly over the years. Key legal changes and shifts in public opinion highlight the tensions surrounding capital punishment, often reflecting deep societal divides. Furthermore, a significant percentage of death sentences in Nigeria—approximately 30%—are later commuted or pardoned, illustrating inefficiencies in the penal system. This delayed action can exacerbate societal tensions, as confirmed criminals often find themselves living back within the communities of their victims, deepening wounds and undermining the principle of justice.

The hesitance of governors may also stem from political calculations that prioritise their standing with constituents over their official responsibilities. Fearing backlash from human rights organisations or segments of the electorate, these leaders often opt for a populist stance, sidestepping the difficult decision to uphold justice. This is especially problematic in a nation plagued by violence; leaders must confront these challenging realities instead of retreating from them. By favouring political convenience over moral imperatives, such governors betray their commitment to protecting the lives of law-abiding citizens, effectively choosing expedience over integrity.

Furthermore, such inaction represents a breach of the oath of office that governors take upon assuming their roles. They swear to uphold the law and ensure justice within their jurisdictions. By refusing to sign off on death sentences, they undermine not only their affirmations but also set a troubling precedent that suggests certain individuals are above the law. This attitude erodes the very foundation of the rule of law, essential for any democratic society. The lack of commitment to justice demoralises not just the judiciary but also law enforcement, complicating the already daunting task of combating crime in a fractured society.

An additional concern is that the emotional and psychological impact of such inaction cannot be overstated. Victims’ families often grapple with unresolved grief, left without the closure that justice might provide. This prolonged suffering amplifies feelings of anger and frustration, leading to societal discontent and a potential spiral into vigilante justice. Beyond individual experiences, there is a collective emotional toll that can destabilise communities, impacting social cohesion.

Moreover, the economic implications of maintaining the death penalty system deserve mention. The financial costs associated with lengthy trials, appeals, and incarceration can be staggering, amounting to millions that could otherwise support preventive measures, rehabilitation programmes, and community development initiatives. For instance, states in the U.S. that abolished the death penalty redirected their funds to social programmes, resulting in decreased recidivism rates and enhancing community safety.

The external influence of international human rights organisations also plays a critical role in shaping domestic policies regarding the death penalty. These entities can create pressure that complicates governors’ decisions, often creating a narrative that equates the signing of death sentences with human rights violations. As such, they must navigate a complex landscape that includes both domestic expectations and international standards.

It is crucial to acknowledge grassroots movements advocating for justice reform. Recent surveys indicate that over 60% of Nigerians support life sentences over the death penalty, reflecting a shift in public attitudes toward justice. Public campaigns can significantly influence the decisions of governors, challenging them to act responsibly in light of the will of the people. By tapping into the collective desires for safety and justice, these movements can galvanise action and encourage accountability in governance.

Engaging in the philosophical debate surrounding rehabilitation versus retribution, we must consider how the absence of a clear policy on this matter reflects the indecisiveness of governors. Should the focus be on punitive measures, or should there be a shift towards rehabilitation for offenders? This question is vital, as it can inform future policies and governors’ actions.

For governors who have failed to act on signing death sentences, several constructive suggestions can provide a path forward. Firstly, they should prioritise open and transparent communication with the public, explaining their decisions and the rationale behind their reluctance. Engaging citizens in dialogues about crime and justice can foster a cooperative approach to governance. Secondly, governors can initiate or support broader justice reforms that include public consultations, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and expectations regarding punitive measures. By involving the community in these discussions, leaders can help shape a more informed consensus on the issue.

Governors should also seek mentorship and advice from officials in jurisdictions that have effectively addressed similar dilemmas. Learning from best practices can provide insights into balancing human rights with the need for justice. Additionally, establishing partnerships with law enforcement and victims’ advocacy groups can create a comprehensive approach to tackling crime while ensuring that victims’ rights are front and centre in their policies.

Finally, embracing a re-evaluation of the justice system as a whole – considering alternatives to the death penalty while still addressing violent crime – could offer a viable compromise. Exploring rehabilitation-focused policies may align better with contemporary views on justice and morality while still upholding public safety.

In conclusion, the reluctance of Nigerian governors to sign death sentences underscores a troubling trend prioritising political expediency over moral responsibility. This attitude compromises the integrity of their oaths and exacerbates long-standing societal issues. It is time for leaders to confront the realities of crime and justice with the seriousness they warrant, ensuring their actions reflect a commitment to serve and protect all citizens. By considering historical context, societal impacts, and global influences, governors can begin to restore faith in the justice system and honour the principles embedded in their oaths of office, ultimately fostering a safer and more just society for all.

Copyright © 2025 Fẹ́mi Akínṣọlá. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author.