In 1975, as a young reporter, I was assigned to cover the visit of Alhaji Lateef Jakande to prisons in Benin City in his capacity then as President of the Prisoners Welfare Association of Nigeria. I followed him to the main prison on Sapele Road and the smaller one at Ogba. It was my first experience inside a prison, including the death row, and it left a lasting impression because it was not a pretty sight. Death row in Nigerian prisons – now called Correctional Centres, though one may ask what is being corrected in someone not expected to come out alive – are filled with persons awaiting execution and they are hardly executed. One of the inmates we saw in the Sapele Road Benin prison in the 70s who was condemned to death for highway robbery and was in shackles even in the row, was released years later and he became a power broker. Several stories of this kind abound, and you then wonder why keep the death penalty if it does not lead to death.
The death penalty has always been one of the most divisive issues in criminal justice, forcing societies to confront questions of morality, legality and governance. Some countries have abolished it entirely, insisting that no state should take a life. Others retain it in law but rarely enforce it, leaving thousands of condemned prisoners languishing on death row for decades. The debate is therefore not only about whether executions should occur, but also about what happens when they do not, when inmates remain in limbo in conditions that effectively amount to life imprisonment.
Globally, the picture is mixed. Amnesty International reports that at least 1,153 executions took place across 16 countries in 2023, the highest figure since 2015. Iran alone accounted for nearly three‑quarters of these executions, followed by Saudi Arabia and Iraq. China’s numbers remain a state secret but are believed to be in the thousands annually. By contrast, Europe has no death row inmates at all. The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits capital punishment, and every member state has abolished it. This makes Europe a death‑penalty‑free zone, a stark contrast to Asia and Africa where executions continue.
Nigeria presents one of the most striking paradoxes. The country retains the death penalty for crimes such as armed robbery, murder, treason, and coup plotting. Courts continue to hand down death sentences, yet executions are rare. The last widely reported executions occurred in 2013, when four prisoners were hanged in Edo State. Since then, governors have largely refused to sign death warrants. As of March 2025, Nigeria had 3,688 prisoners on death row, up from 3,590 just six months earlier. This reflects a system where the judiciary imposes capital punishment, but the executive branch hesitates to enforce it. Yet this reluctance raises constitutional questions. Governors swear an oath to uphold the law, and the constitution empowers them to sign death warrants or commute sentences.
In the United States, as of January 2026, between 2,000 and 2,300 inmates remain on death row. California alone holds nearly 600, though it has not carried out an execution since 2006. Texas, Florida and Alabama continue to implement executions, with several scheduled for 2026. Even so, governors sometimes pause executions over concerns about lethal injection procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment but insists it must not be “cruel and unusual,” prompting extensive litigation over execution methods, racial disparities and wrongful convictions. DNA evidence has exonerated dozens of death row inmates, heightening fears of irreversible error. Elsewhere, Pakistan holds more than 3,900 inmates awaiting execution, Bangladesh has about 2,400, and India over 400, with executions often sporadic.
The debate intensifies in Arab and Islamic countries, especially regarding drug offences. In 2024, at least 615 people were executed worldwide for drug-related crimes, with Iran responsible for at least 485 and Saudi Arabia for 122. By mid-2025, Saudi Arabia had executed 144 more for drug offences. The dynamics vary globally.
For Nigeria, taking a clear stance on the implementation of the death penalty is critical to the credibility of its justice system. Nigerian leaders have, over the past decade, hesitated in enforcing death sentences. This hesitation is often attributed to sustained human rights pressure from international organisations and global campaigns against capital punishment. The fear of diplomatic fallout has left many leaders reluctant to act, preferring caution over decisiveness. However, Nigeria’s justice system should not become subordinate to foreign pressure. Penal policy must reflect domestic realities, not external approval. If a sovereign state allows its criminal justice decisions to be dictated from outside, it risks weakening both its authority and its capacity to deter crime. The US continues to defend the constitutionality of capital punishment within its own legal framework. This demonstrates that retention of the death penalty is not incompatible with constitutional democracy.
Criminal justice systems differ across societies and cannot be universally standardised. Local context matters. In Nigeria, where the country confronts serious cases of murder, kidnapping, terrorism, rape, armed robbery and banditry, capital punishment remains embedded in the law as a response to the gravest offences. Where properly adjudicated, it can function as a strong deterrent and control mechanism. A situation in which hardened criminals are sentenced to death but later benefit from pardons, commutations without clarity, or systemic weaknesses undermines public confidence and emboldens criminal networks.
“To be or not to be” therefore cannot remain a rhetorical flourish. If the death penalty is to remain in Nigeria’s statutes, it should be enforced without fear or political hesitation. Governors and Presidents must adopt a decisive position consistent with their constitutional responsibilities. Standing on the fence carries consequences for both the justice system and national sovereignty.
