Addressing the fate of death row inmates

Last June, President Goodluck Jonathan rebuked the governors of the various states for failing in their responsibility to take the appropriate decision based on the provisions of the Constitution. As if on cue, Edo State governor Adams Oshiomhole, a few days later signed the warrant authorising the execution of four inmates in prison in the […]

Last June, President Goodluck Jonathan rebuked the governors of the various states for failing in their responsibility to take the appropriate decision based on the provisions of the Constitution. As if on cue, Edo State governor Adams Oshiomhole, a few days later signed the warrant authorising the execution of four inmates in prison in the state.
Oshiomhole action ran into a torrent of criticism by human rights activists, local and international nongovernmental organizations that campaign against capital punishment. They have been vociferous in demands that the death penalty be expunged from the statutes.
The fresh debate over the issue that the Edo State hangings provoked may have placed a dampener on the position of governors who might want to follow Oshiomhole’s lead. But as the recent report reminded everyone, the problem has not gone away, and will not unless the right decision is taken.  
Whatever may be the arguments in the capital punishment debate, the fact is that it is a subsisting part of the law in Nigeria. It is on the basis of extant laws that the trial of the death row inmates went through the entire legal process, as they must in cases that involve murder.  
 Where there has been a miscarriage of justice and there is fresh evidence to prove so, this should be presented before the courts for a reconsideration of any particular case. Where that is however not the case, hesitating for so long to carry out the full orders of the courts is a travesty of the law. Justice should not only be seen to be done to the defendant; the state, the society and victims of horrendous crimes also deserve it. This may sound like a ringing endorsement of the death penalty as part of the justice system. It is not; it is rather a call to abide by the law, however unpalatable this may appear to some.
It is not right that the relevant authorities have either been squeamish or conveniently neglected to exercise this aspect of their constitutional responsibility in enforcing the law and carrying out court sentences as they pertains to convicted capital crime offenders.   When those who have committed crimes, and were duly convicted for them, are kept in prison for much longer than necessary, it is the duty of the state to step in and bring a closure to the issue, by deciding one way or another. Taking no decision is a failure to exercise that onerous responsibility.
The issue of whether the death penalty is a deterrent to the commission of crime is a moot point in the current debate, and should not provide extenuating cause for those waiting for the law to take its course-or reprieve.  And it is useful to restate that violent crimes like murders and armed robbery and fatal kidnapping and rape could be on the rise today, as statistics have shown, because of the possibility of escaping punishment as previous sentences have not been carried out.
Keeping condemned prisoners for much longer than necessary in prison is not fair to all concerned, including those involved. The state in particular is not sending the right message to society that there are certain behaviours that it abhors in the interest of the overall health of society. And for the offenders, nothing can be more traumatising than keeping anyone in limbo for any length of time. Dithering on the part of the governors to do what is expected of them will not solve the problem. The governors should act quickly to sign the death warrants, commute such sentences, or grant state pardon. Doing nothing is an option.