Dear President of the Senate & Distinguished Senators,
This open letter is to respectfully contribute to Senate’s deliberations on the proposal to amend the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act to introduce the death penalty for kidnapping. At the outset, may I state unequivocally that I denounce kidnapping in the strongest terms and have no sympathy whatsoever for criminality. As such, this letter is guided solely by the pursuit of effective and evidence-based responses that will genuinely enhance public safety in Nigeria.
My position on this issue is informed by over two decades of experience as a United Nations Senior Human Rights and Rule of Law Adviser, during which I worked with over 22 governments in conflict/post-conflict settings on counter-terrorism legislation, criminal justice reform, policing and public safety. I have seen first-hand which legislative response reduces violent crime and which merely create the illusion of toughness while failing in practice.
This opinion is also informed by personal experience with kidnappers. My elder brother was kidnapped after his police orderly was shot and disarmed. I negotiated directly with the kidnappers and delivered ransom at their dangerous den. I know the terror and helplessness families experience, and it is precisely because of this lived experience, coupled with professional exposure that I argue for measures that will actually prevent kidnapping, rather than symbolic penalties that offer emotional satisfaction without results. While Senate’s proposal to expand the death penalty to kidnapping may appear decisive, it is unlikely to prevent kidnapping. Instead, it risks diverting legislative attention from reforms that would meaningfully address kidnapping.
The Proposed Amendment Misdiagnoses the Problem
Senate assumes that kidnapping is persisting because of incommensurate penalties. Evidence shows the opposite. Kidnapping thrives because detection is weak, intelligence poor, arrests rare, and institutions fragile. Expanding punitive laws distracts from needful reforms and creates false political comfort without improving safety. Amending the Terrorism Act to include kidnapping is legally redundant and risks becoming another symbolic statute that would not satisfy its legislative intent. Nigeria already has overlapping State kidnapping laws, federal criminal statutes, and counter-terrorism frameworks. Adding another capital offence at the federal level duplicates existing provisions without addressing the drivers of crime.
Death Penalty Already Exists for Kidnapping
Contrary to the assumption underlying the proposed amendment, Nigeria already has extensive death-penalty provisions across federal and state laws. At least fourteen States have enacted anti-kidnapping laws prescribing the death penalty in aggravated circumstances, including Abia, Anambra, Akwa Ibom, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Kano, Katsina, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, and Rivers States. These statutes demonstrate that there is no legal vacuum requiring federal reinforcement and the persistence of kidnapping despite these laws shows that the problem lies not in legislative severity, but in enforcement incapacity.
On the other hand, death penalty for kidnapping is rarely implemented in Nigeria, not because of the absence of law, but because of the weaknesses in the criminal justice system and inexplicable reluctance by State Governors to sign execution warrants. It might be pertinent to recall that the last execution in Nigeria occurred in Edo State in 2016 after a previous one in 2013, also in Edo State. Before then, the earliest nationwide execution took place in 2006 in Kaduna, Plateau and Enugu States. Based on the foregoing, expanding a punishment that States seldom enforce does not strengthen deterrence, it exposes institutional weakness.
Kidnapping Is a State Crime; Federalising It Is Ineffective
Nigeria’s constitutional structure and criminal justice system firmly situate kidnapping within the jurisdiction of States and State High Courts. Under the 1999 Constitution, matters not expressly placed on the Exclusive Legislative List fall under the residual powers of States, including kidnapping. On the contrary, addressing kidnapping is not a federal function to be assigned to the Federal High Court, which is a court of enumerated jurisdiction and may only try offences intrinsically linked to federal matters. Consequently, attempting to federalise kidnapping through the Terrorism Act will disrupt established State prosecution systems, risks generating constitutional challenge and unnecessary legal uncertainty, especially when the Federal High Court is already struggling with heavy caseload.
Death Penalty Does Not Deter Kidnapping in Nigeria
Nigeria’s experience shows conclusively that the death penalty does not deter violent crime. Despite capital punishment for armed robbery, murder, treason, and aggravated kidnapping, crime has not declined. Kidnapping has increased even in States with the harshest laws. As of April 2024, approximately 3,504 inmates are on death row, yet fewer than fifteen executions have occurred in nearly two decades. If the death penalty were an effective deterrent, such high number of inmates on death row would correlate with reduced crime. They do not. Edo State’s executions in 2013 and 2016 did not lead to any measurable reduction in kidnapping or violent crime. Criminological evidence is clear: offenders respond to the certainty of arrest, not the severity of punishment. Where the likelihood of arrest is minimal, even the harshest penalty is not a deterrent.
Institutional Failures Drive Kidnapping, Not Legal Gaps
Kidnapping persists in Nigeria because institutions responsible for prevention, detection, and prosecution are overstretched, under-resourced and poorly coordinated. Policing capacity is weak, police-to-citizen ratios are low, response times are slow, rural and highway patrols are limited amidst several ungoverned spaces, etc. Intelligence systems are fragmented, community informant networks weak, inter-agency coordination limited, and use of digital and geospatial surveillance inadequate. Also, forensic capacity is minimal, crime-scene management, digital forensics and DNA analysis are largely absent. Likewise, SIM-card tracking failures allow kidnappers to negotiate ransoms recklessly and repeatedly without detection, despite mandatory registration.
The proliferation of illicit firearms and porous borders further empower kidnapping networks. Millions of illegal weapons circulate freely, while over 1,400 unofficial border routes enable arms trafficking and criminal mobility. Punishment regimes do not stop these. Technology, intelligence and border control do. Low arrest and conviction rates render penalties meaningless. Estimates suggest fewer than 10% of kidnappers are arrested, fewer than 5% prosecuted, and fewer than 2% convicted. When offenders expect impunity, punishment severity has no deterrent value.
Recommendations:
Targeted, Time-Bound State of Emergency – If exceptional measures are required to curb kidnapping and insecurity in Nigeria, the Constitution already provides a lawful mechanism. Section 305 allows the declaration of a State of Emergency with approval of the National Assembly. A targeted, time-bound, nondiscriminatory and proportionate State of Emergency allows lawful deployment of extraordinary measures to address insecurity, including clearance of forest camps, movement restrictions, intensive surveillance, telecom disruptions, arms mop-ups, and reinforced border patrols. These human rights compliant measures address the real drivers of kidnapping and are more effective than expanding capital punishment.
Senate’s Legislative and Oversight Mandate – The Senate is urged to exercise its legislative and oversight mandate to prioritise institutional strengthening over punitive expansion. It should legislate to establish a National Kidnapping Prevention and Response Framework under ONSA to coordinate agencies, standardise protocols, and maintain a national kidnapping intelligence database. It could also resource intelligence-led policing, including regulated access to geolocation, data-fusion centres and lawful surveillance tools. The Senate should consider providing statutory backing and funding for Anti-Kidnapping Units nationwide, with minimum operational standards and specialised capacity.
These and other measures fall squarely within the Senate’s constitutional mandate and offer a credible, lawful, and effective response to kidnapping. Strengthening institutions, not multiplying penalties is the path to durable public safety in Nigeria.
GOD BLESS NIGERIA
Prof. Uchenna Emelonye
(Former United Nations Human Rights Envoy)
CEO AfriRIGHTS
Visiting Professor, Bournemouth University, United Kingdom
Professorial Researcher, SOAS University of London
uemelonye@bournemouth.ac.uk; ue4@soas.ac.uk; emelonye@afrirights.org
