In a pivotal policy confrontation unfolding in Abuja, the Federal Government under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has issued a robust admonition against legislative efforts to expand the death penalty to include kidnappers and terrorists, warning that such a move would undermine Nigeria’s already fragile security architecture and could exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, the nation’s persistent insecurity.Officials framed the debate within a broader context of national security strategy, judicial prudence, and international cooperation, intensifying discussions about Nigeria’s fight against terrorism and armed violence.
Addressing lawmakers at a public hearing convened by the Senate Committees on Human Rights and Legal Matters, National Security and Intelligence, and Interior, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi(SAN), presented the administration’s case against a proposed amendment to the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act that would prescribe the death penalty, with no alternative sentencing, for all kidnapping-related offences. Fagbemi described the proposal as strategically counterproductive, cautioning that it risked “inadvertently facilitating the ‘martyrdom’ trap” and empowering extremist narratives that drive radical actors rather than deter them.
Fagbemi’s testimony underscored the complexity of combating violent extremism in a nation where ideological motivations frequently blur the lines between criminality and terrorism. “From a tactical perspective,” he argued, “it is our view that the proposal to include the death penalty for convicted terrorists should be reviewed, because it inadvertently facilitates the ‘martyrdom’ trap.” He emphasized that capital punishment, especially when applied to ideologically driven offenders, could transform the State’s judicial response into a form of validation for their violent causes, complicating deradicalization efforts and possibly deepening recruitment drives.
The Attorney General also highlighted significant implications for Nigeria’s diplomatic and legal partnerships, warning that many international allies engaged in the global war on terror might resist extradition or mutual legal assistance when suspects face execution. According to Fagbemi, such resistance could result in high-profile terror suspects evading justice by remaining within foreign jurisdictions that adhere to strict human rights protocols. “Many of our international partners … will not extradite high-profile suspects if they face the risk of capital punishment,” he said, suggesting that the proposed amendment might create unintended safe havens for violent offenders abroad.
Adding to the government’s argument was the longstanding operational challenge within Nigeria’s own justice system: the reluctance of state governors to sign execution warrants for moral, religious, or political reasons, effectively creating a de facto moratorium on capital punishment. This reality, Fagbemi noted, has left many condemned terrorists languishing in correctional facilities, further congesting prisons and raising concerns about radicalization within incarceration settings. He stressed the irreversible nature of the death penalty and the grave legal risks associated with judicial error, urging that Nigeria’s punishments remain firm yet reversible to allow rectification of miscarriages of justice.
The government’s stance comes amid heightened legislative pressure to reclassify kidnapping and related violent crimes as acts of terrorism, with proponents arguing that harsh penalties, including capital punishment, are necessary to deter widespread abductions and brutality that have terrorized communities across Nigeria. Recent Senate deliberations have underscored frustrations over mass kidnappings, economic disruptions, and mounting public fear, with some lawmakers advocating sweeping legal reforms to strengthen prosecutorial tools and sentencing severity.
However, critics of expanded capital punishment ranging from legal experts to human rights organizations have echoed government concerns, highlighting international legal obligations and the absence of credible evidence that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent. They argue that emphasis should instead be placed on enhancing policing, intelligence capabilities, and comprehensive justice-sector reforms.
As the debate continues, the Tinubu administration’s warning has framed a national crossroads: whether to adopt punitive measures rooted in retributive justice or to pursue a more strategic, rights-conscious approach to combating the multifaceted threats posed by terrorists, kidnappers, and armed criminal networks. The outcome may well influence Nigeria’s security policy trajectory and its standing in both regional and international counter terrorism collaborations.