Right to Life in Nigeria: Legal Interpretations and Exceptions

Right to Life in Nigeria: Legal Interpretations and Exceptions

I. Introduction: The Cornerstone of Human Existence

The right to life is unequivocally the most fundamental of all human rights. It forms the bedrock upon which all other rights and freedoms are built, for without the right to exist, the exercise of any other entitlement becomes moot. In its broadest sense, the right to life asserts that every human being possesses an inherent and inalienable right to live, particularly the right not to be unlawfully deprived of their life by another. This principle is universally recognized and enshrined in international human rights instruments, reflecting a global consensus on the sanctity of human life.

In Nigeria, a nation with a rich and complex legal history, the right to life holds paramount importance, serving as a critical pillar of its constitutional democracy. Its recognition is not merely a legal formality but a vital safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of life, ensuring dignity and security for all citizens. This blog post will embark on a comprehensive exploration of the right to life in Nigeria, delving into its constitutional foundations, the nuanced interpretations offered by Nigerian courts, and the carefully delineated exceptions that permit the taking of life under specific, legally sanctioned circumstances. We will also examine the persistent challenges to its full realization and consider pathways for strengthening its protection.

II. Constitutional Foundation: Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution

The primary legal bedrock for the right to life in Nigeria is Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This section provides:

(1) Every person shall be entitled to life, and no one shall be intentionally deprived of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.¹

(2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a re2sult of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary –3

(a) for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property;4

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; 5or

(c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.

Historical Context: The inclusion of fundamental rights, including the right to life, in Nigeria’s constitutions dates back to the Independence Constitution of 1960 and the Republican Constitution of 1963. These early constitutional provisions were largely influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other international instruments, signifying Nigeria’s commitment to global human rights standards even at its nascent stages as an independent nation. Subsequent military regimes, while often violating these rights in practice, rarely formally abrogated them. The return to democratic rule in 1999 brought renewed emphasis on constitutionalism and the rule of law, reinforcing the importance of Section 33.

Analysis of Key Phrases:

• “Every person shall be entitled to life”: This phrase emphasizes the universality of the right, applying to all individuals within Nigerian jurisdiction, irrespective of their status, age, or any other characteristic. It signifies an inherent claim to existence.
• “no one shall be intentionally deprived of his life”: This establishes the core prohibition against arbitrary and unlawful killing. The word “intentionally” is crucial, implying a deliberate act aimed at causing death. This forms the general rule.
• “save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria”: This is the primary and most significant exception, explicitly permitting capital punishment under due process of law.

III. Legal Interpretations of the Right to Life by Nigerian Courts

Nigerian courts, particularly the appellate courts, have played a vital role in interpreting and expanding the scope of the right to life beyond mere physical existence. Their decisions have often sought to align constitutional provisions with evolving human rights jurisprudence and societal needs.

A. Judicial Precedents and Expansive Interpretations:

While Section 33 primarily addresses the intentional deprivation of life, Nigerian courts have, through progressive judgments, broadened its interpretation to encompass aspects crucial for a dignified existence.

• Sanctity of Life: Courts consistently uphold the sanctity of human life as a foundational principle. Any action that threatens life, even indirectly, is scrutinized carefully.
• Right to a Healthy and Safe Environment: In landmark cases, courts have linked the right to life with the right to a healthy environment. For instance, in Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company & Others, the Federal High Court held that the right to life and dignity of the human person (Section 33 and 34 of the Constitution) implicitly includes the right to a clean, healthy, and pollution-free environment. This interpretation recognizes that severe environmental degradation can directly impair life and health.
• Access to Healthcare: Though not explicitly stated as a socio-economic right, some judicial pronouncements and scholarly arguments suggest an implicit link between the right to life and access to essential healthcare, particularly in emergency situations or where lack of care poses an immediate threat to life. While not as robust as in some jurisdictions with strong socio-economic rights provisions, this area continues to evolve.
• Protection from Police Brutality and Extrajudicial Killings: Courts have consistently condemned the arbitrary taking of life by state agents, emphasizing that the exceptions under Section 33(2) must be strictly adhered to. Cases involving police brutality and extrajudicial killings are viewed as grave violations of the right to life, and judgments often emphasize the need for accountability and adherence to the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s stance in cases like Adamu v. The State reinforces that the use of lethal force by law enforcement must be absolutely necessary and proportionate.
• Right to Dignity of Human Person (Section 34): The right to life is often read in conjunction with the right to dignity of the human person (Section 34). This synergy implies that life must not only be preserved but also lived with dignity, free from torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This has implications for prison conditions, treatment of suspects, and other aspects of state interaction with individuals.

B. The “When Life Begins” Debate (Implications for Abortion):

The question of when life begins, particularly in the context of an unborn child, has significant implications for abortion laws. Nigerian law, influenced by the Criminal Code (applicable in Southern Nigeria) and the Penal Code (applicable in Northern Nigeria), is largely restrictive on abortion.

• Criminal Code (Sections 228-230): Generally criminalizes abortion, making it an offense for a doctor to perform one, for a woman to procure one, and for anyone to supply means for an abortion.
• Penal Code (Sections 232-234): Contains similar prohibitions.
• Exception: To Save the Mother’s Life: Both codes, largely through judicial interpretation (e.g., drawing from the English case of R v. Bourne), generally permit abortion only when it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. This creates a direct conflict between the perceived right to life of the fetus and the established right to life of the mother.
• Legal Personhood: Nigerian law, particularly Section 307 of the Criminal Code, traditionally defines a person as a human being when it has completely proceeded from its mother’s body, whether or not it has breathed or the umbilical cord is severed. This legal definition has historically limited the recognition of legal personhood (and thus the full constitutional right to life) for a fetus. This area remains a contentious point of debate, with reproductive rights advocates calling for reform.

IV. Exceptions to the Right to Life in Nigeria

While the right to life is fundamental, Section 33 of the Constitution, alongside other specific statutes, outlines circumstances where the deprivation of life is considered lawful and not a contravention of the right. These exceptions are narrowly construed and subject to strict legal requirements.

A. Capital Punishment (Death Penalty):

This is the most explicit exception provided in Section 33(1).

• Constitutional Basis: The proviso “save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria” unequivocally permits the death penalty.
• Offences Punishable by Death: The death penalty is prescribed for a range of grave offenses under the Criminal Code, Penal Code, and other specific laws. These typically include:
  • Murder (Section 316 of the Criminal Code): The most common offense.
  • Armed Robbery (Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act): Often leading to capital sentences.
  • Treason (Sections 37 & 49 of the Criminal Code): Acts against the state.
  • Treachery (Section 208 of the Criminal Code):
  • Fabricating false evidence leading to the conviction and execution of an innocent person.
  • Aiding the suicide of a child or an insane person.
  • Under Sharia Law (in some Northern states): Certain offenses like zina (adultery), rape, sodomy, incest, and some witchcraft/juju offenses can attract the death penalty by stoning.
• Methods of Execution: Historically, methods include hanging and firing squad. In some Sharia-implementing states, stoning is prescribed. Lethal injection was also introduced in some states.
• Safeguards and Limitations:
  • Due Process: The sentence must be pronounced by a competent court after a fair trial, adhering to all due process rights (e.g., right to fair hearing, legal representation, presumption of innocence).
  • Appeals: Convicts have the right to appeal to higher courts (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court). Executions while appeals are pending are illegal (e.g., Attorney-General of Oyo State v. Raji – where the execution of an armed robbery convict while his appeal was pending was deemed unlawful).
  • Age and Pregnancy: Nigerian law prohibits the execution of persons who were under 18 years at the time of the offense and pregnant women. Their sentences are typically commuted to life imprisonment.
• Debates and Controversies: The death penalty in Nigeria remains highly contentious.
  • Human Rights Concerns: Critics argue it is a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, violating the right to dignity and the evolving international human rights jurisprudence against capital punishment.
  • Irreversibility and Wrongful Convictions: The irreversible nature of execution means that any wrongful conviction cannot be rectified, a significant concern given issues within the criminal justice system.
  • Effectiveness as a Deterrent: There is ongoing debate about whether the death penalty effectively deters crime. Studies often suggest no conclusive evidence that it does.
  • Disproportionate Application: Concerns exist about its disproportionate application, often affecting the poor and marginalized who lack adequate legal representation.
  • Calls for Abolition/Moratorium: Local and international human rights organizations actively advocate for the abolition of the death penalty or, at the very least, a moratorium on executions. While executions have been sporadic since the return to democracy in 1999, thousands remain on death row.

B. Self-Defence and Defence of Property:

Section 33(2)(a) permits the use of lethal force “for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property.”

• Legal Basis: This is enshrined in both the Criminal Code (e.g., Section 286 on self-defence) and the Penal Code.
• Key Principles:
  • Necessity: The force used must be reasonably necessary to repel the attack.
  • Proportionality: The force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. Lethal force is only justifiable when there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm to oneself or another, or to prevent a violent felony against property that threatens life.
  • Imminence: The threat must be immediate or imminent.
  • No Duty to Retreat (generally): While the law does not strictly impose a duty to retreat, the option to retreat is a factor in determining if the force used was “reasonably necessary.”
• Judicial Scrutiny: Courts critically examine self-defence claims to ensure the force used was truly necessary and proportionate, guarding against abuse.

C. Lawful Arrest and Prevention of Escape:

Section 33(2)(b) allows for the use of force resulting in death “in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.”

• Legal Basis: This provision applies primarily to law enforcement officers (police, military, prison officials).
• Limitations and Guidelines:
  • Lawful Arrest: The arrest itself must be lawful, based on reasonable suspicion or a warrant.
  • Reasonable Necessity: The force used must be “reasonably necessary” to effect the arrest or prevent escape. Lethal force is generally considered a measure of last resort, to be used only when there is an immediate threat of serious harm to the officer or others, or if the suspect is believed to have committed a very serious felony and cannot otherwise be apprehended.
  • Police Force Orders: The Nigerian Police Force has internal “Force Orders” (like the revised Order 237) that provide guidelines on the use of firearms, generally requiring that lethal force only be used when life is in danger, defending others from death, or dispersing violent assemblies where there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
• Extrajudicial Killings and Accountability: Despite these provisions, extrajudicial killings by security agencies remain a significant human rights challenge in Nigeria. Courts have often reiterated that arbitrary killings in the guise of “effecting arrest” or “preventing escape” are gross violations of the right to life, leading to demands for thorough investigations and prosecution of erring officers. The #EndSARS protests highlighted this persistent issue.

D. Suppression of Riots, Insurrections, and Mutiny:

Section 33(2)(c) permits the use of force resulting in death “for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.”

• Context: This exception typically applies to the military and other security forces in situations of civil unrest or armed rebellion.
• Strict Conditions:
  • Proclamation: In the case of riots, a proclamation is often required before lethal force is used, allowing dispersal.
  • Reasonable Necessity: The force must be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the threat posed by the riot, insurrection, or mutiny. This aligns with international principles of proportionality and necessity in the use of force by security forces.
  • Adherence to International Law: While suppressing internal unrest, security forces are expected to adhere to international human rights law and, where applicable, international humanitarian law, minimizing harm to civilians.
• Concerns: There are concerns regarding the arbitrary declaration of “riots” or “insurrections” to justify excessive force, particularly in contexts of peaceful protests. The Lekki Toll Gate incident during the #EndSARS protests in 2020 raised significant questions about the application of this exception and the accountability of security forces.

E. Execution of Court Sentences (beyond death penalty):

While Section 33(1) focuses on the death penalty, the general principle of “execution of the sentence of a court” covers situations where force leading to death might occur incidentally to a lawful court order, though this is rare and would be subject to strict scrutiny of proportionality and necessity. For instance, if a person resisting lawful detention as part of a court sentence dies as a result of reasonably necessary force to secure their detention, it might fall under this broad principle, but this is a far less common application than the explicit exceptions.

V. Challenges and Controversies in Protecting the Right to Life

Despite constitutional guarantees and judicial pronouncements, the full realization and protection of the right to life in Nigeria face significant challenges.

• Extrajudicial Killings and Impunity: This remains one of the most glaring challenges. Reports by local and international human rights organizations consistently document cases of extrajudicial killings by police, military, and other security agencies, particularly in the context of counter-insurgency operations, crime fighting, and internal security. The lack of accountability for these abuses, often due to weak investigative mechanisms, corruption, and a culture of impunity, undermines public trust in the state’s commitment to protecting life.
• Abortion and Reproductive Rights Debate: The highly restrictive abortion laws in Nigeria lead to a high incidence of unsafe abortions, which in turn contribute significantly to maternal mortality. This raises a fundamental conflict: while the law seeks to protect fetal life, its restrictive nature inadvertently leads to the preventable deaths of women, thereby violating their right to life and health. Advocates call for reform to balance the protection of life with women’s reproductive health and autonomy.
• Insecurity and Armed Conflict: The pervasive insecurity across Nigeria, fueled by insurgency (e.g., Boko Haram), banditry, kidnapping, communal clashes, and cultism, directly threatens the right to life on a massive scale. These conflicts result in widespread deaths, displacement, and humanitarian crises, often beyond the direct control of state forces. The state’s capacity to protect its citizens from non-state actors is a critical challenge.
• Poor Healthcare and Environmental Degradation: The right to life extends beyond protection from intentional killing to encompass the conditions necessary for a healthy existence. In Nigeria, inadequate healthcare infrastructure, limited access to essential medicines, and widespread environmental pollution (e.g., oil spills in the Niger Delta, air pollution in urban centers) contribute to preventable deaths and diminish the quality of life, indirectly impacting the enjoyment of the right to life.
• Overcrowded Prisons and Detentions: Conditions in Nigerian prisons and detention centers often fall below international standards, leading to deaths from disease, malnutrition, and violence. Prolonged pre-trial detention also exacerbates these issues, raising concerns about the right to life and dignity for those awaiting trial.
• Poverty and Socio-Economic Disparities: Extreme poverty, lack of access to basic amenities like clean water and sanitation, and socio-economic inequalities contribute to higher mortality rates, particularly among vulnerable populations. While not a direct intentional deprivation, these systemic issues indirectly undermine the right to life by creating conditions unconducive to human flourishing.

VI. International Human Rights Instruments and their Influence

Nigeria is a signatory to several international and regional human rights instruments that reinforce and expand upon the principles enshrined in Section 33 of its Constitution. These instruments often guide judicial interpretations and advocacy efforts for stronger protection of the right to life.

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR – 1948): Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This foundational document provides a universal benchmark for the right to life.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR – 1966): Article 6 specifically addresses the right to life, emphasizing that “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” It also places restrictions on the use of the death penalty, stating it can only be imposed for “most serious crimes” and carried out pursuant to a final judgment by a competent court.
• African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR – 1981): Article 4 declares: “Every human being shall be inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.”
• Domestication and Application: For these international treaties to have direct legal force in Nigeria, they must be domesticated into national law by the National Assembly. The African Charter, for instance, has been domesticated as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, making its provisions enforceable by Nigerian courts. This dualist approach means that international standards influence, but do not automatically override, domestic law.

VII. Recommendations and Way Forward

To strengthen the protection and realization of the right to life in Nigeria, a multi-faceted approach is required:

• Strengthening Legal and Institutional Frameworks:
  • Review and Reform of Laws: Critically review laws relating to capital punishment with a view to imposing a moratorium or abolition, in line with global trends. Similarly, initiate a national dialogue and legislative reform on abortion laws to prioritize women’s health and reduce maternal mortality.
  • Police and Security Sector Reform: Implement comprehensive reforms within the police and military to ensure adherence to human rights principles, particularly regarding the use of force. This includes training, equipping, and sensitizing officers on international best practices and accountability mechanisms.
  • Judicial Independence and Capacity: Continue to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and enhance the capacity of judges and lawyers in human rights jurisprudence.
• Ensuring Accountability and Ending Impunity:
  • Effective Investigation and Prosecution: Establish independent and efficient mechanisms for investigating all alleged violations of the right to life, particularly extrajudicial killings. Ensure prompt and fair prosecution of perpetrators, regardless of their status or affiliation.
  • Victim Support and Redress: Provide adequate redress, rehabilitation, and compensation to victims and families of human rights violations.
• Improving Socio-Economic Conditions:
  • Healthcare Investment: Substantially increase investment in healthcare infrastructure, personnel, and access to essential services, particularly for vulnerable populations.
  • Environmental Protection: Enforce environmental laws rigorously and hold polluters accountable to protect communities from the health impacts of environmental degradation.
  • Poverty Alleviation: Implement robust policies aimed at poverty reduction and addressing socio-economic disparities to create an environment where all citizens can live a dignified life.
• Promoting Human Rights Education:
  • Public Awareness: Conduct extensive public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about their right to life and other fundamental rights, as well as their civic responsibilities.
  • Integration into Curricula: Integrate human rights education into school curricula at all levels and provide specialized training for law enforcement and public officials.
• Role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs):
  • Continue to support and collaborate with CSOs in their advocacy, monitoring, and legal aid efforts related to the right to life. CSOs play a crucial role in documenting abuses, raising awareness, and pushing for reforms.
• International Cooperation:
  • Engage actively with international human rights bodies and mechanisms, welcoming scrutiny and technical assistance to improve human rights performance.

VIII. Conclusion: An Unwavering Commitment to Life

The right to life in Nigeria, enshrined in Section 33 of the Constitution, stands as a testament to the nation’s commitment to fundamental human rights. While the legal framework provides clear interpretations and delimited exceptions, the journey towards its full and unhindered realization is ongoing. Challenges such as extrajudicial killings, the complexities surrounding capital punishment, the socio-legal dilemmas of abortion, and pervasive insecurity underscore the urgent need for concerted efforts from the government, civil society, and every citizen.

Protecting the right to life goes beyond mere legal pronouncements; it demands a societal commitment to justice, accountability, and the creation of an environment where every individual can thrive. As Nigeria continues its democratic evolution, the unwavering commitment to uphold and defend this most precious right will be a true measure of its progress and its dedication to the dignity of all its people.