The Federal Government has cautioned the National Assembly against introducing the death penalty into Nigeria’s anti-terrorism legal framework, warning that such a move could prove counterproductive, weaken international cooperation, and ultimately undermine the country’s counterterrorism objectives.
The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, delivered the government’s position on Thursday while addressing lawmakers at a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act. The hearing was jointly organised by the Senate Committees on Human Rights and Legal Matters, National Security and Intelligence, and Interior.
At the centre of the debate is a proposal by the Senate to amend the existing law to prescribe the death penalty, without the option of a fine, for all kidnapping-related offences classified as acts of terrorism. The proposal has generated intense public and legislative scrutiny amid Nigeria’s prolonged struggle with kidnapping, insurgency, and violent extremism.
Fagbemi, however, firmly opposed the proposal, arguing that capital punishment for terrorism-related offences could unintentionally strengthen extremist narratives rather than deter criminal activity.
“From a tactical perspective, 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,” the Attorney General told senators.
According to him, many terrorist groups are driven by radical ideologies that glorify death and self-sacrifice. In such contexts, a state-sanctioned execution may be interpreted not as punishment, but as validation of their beliefs and objectives.
“It is critical to note that the fight against terrorism deals with an enemy often driven by radical ideologies, where execution is seen not as a deterrent but as a badge of honour,” Fagbemi said. “This reality must inform our legislative choices.”
Beyond the ideological implications, the justice minister warned that introducing capital punishment into terrorism legislation could significantly damage Nigeria’s standing in global counterterrorism cooperation. He explained that many of Nigeria’s international partners maintain strict legal and human rights standards that prohibit extradition to countries where suspects may face the death penalty.
“We must consider the practical bottleneck that the inclusion of the death penalty creates for international cooperation,” he said. “Many of our partners in the global war on terror will not extradite high-profile suspects if there is a risk of capital punishment.”
Fagbemi cautioned that such restrictions could result in terror suspects fleeing Nigeria or remaining abroad, protected by foreign courts that refuse extradition on human rights grounds. In effect, he said, Nigeria could unintentionally create safe havens for the very individuals it seeks to prosecute.
“By including this provision, we may inadvertently create a safe haven abroad for masterminds of terrorism and kidnapping, who may exploit international legal protections to evade justice,” he added.
The Attorney General also drew attention to Nigeria’s longstanding challenges with the implementation of death sentences. He noted that, in practice, executions are rare due to the reluctance of many state governors to sign death warrants, often citing moral, religious, or political considerations.
“This hesitance has created a de facto moratorium on executions in many parts of the country,” Fagbemi said. “As a result, condemned persons remain indefinitely in correctional facilities, which raises serious questions about the effectiveness and credibility of capital punishment as a policy tool.”
He argued that introducing the death penalty into the Terrorism Act without addressing these structural and political realities would only compound existing problems within the criminal justice system.
In addition, Fagbemi warned of the grave legal risks associated with the irreversible nature of capital punishment, particularly in a system where investigations and prosecutions can be affected by human error, weak evidence gathering, or procedural lapses.
“The finality of the death penalty leaves no room for rectification should new evidence emerge or a miscarriage of justice be discovered,” he said. “To maintain the moral authority of the Nigerian State, punishments must be firm but also allow for correction where errors occur.”
The Attorney General urged lawmakers to consider alternative sentencing options that are severe enough to deter crime, protect society, and signal the state’s resolve, while remaining compatible with international legal standards and human rights obligations. Such options, he suggested, could include life imprisonment, extended custodial sentences, and enhanced asset forfeiture regimes.
Fagbemi’s intervention comes at a time of growing public pressure on government to adopt tougher measures against kidnapping and terrorism, crimes that have inflicted widespread human and economic costs across the country. While some lawmakers and members of the public argue that harsher punishments are necessary to curb rising insecurity, others have expressed concern about the broader implications of capital punishment.
The public hearing provided a platform for security experts, civil society groups, legal practitioners, and government officials to debate the proposed amendments, reflecting the complexity of balancing public safety, justice, and human rights in Nigeria’s counterterrorism strategy.
As deliberations continue, the Senate is expected to weigh the Attorney General’s cautionary advice against demands for stronger punitive measures. The outcome of the legislative process is likely to shape Nigeria’s counterterrorism posture and its engagement with international partners for years to come.
For now, the Tinubu administration has made its position clear: while the fight against terrorism and kidnapping must be resolute, it must also be strategic, legally sound, and aligned with global best practices to avoid unintended consequences that could weaken, rather than strengthen, national security.
