THE STATE OF TEXAS V. JESUS CHRIST: EXAMINING THE RIGHTS OF INMATES CONDEMNED TO DEATH AND AWAITING EXECUTION IN NIGERIA.

By Joshua Ufedo Baba

University of Jos

Abstract

In 2021, The Atlantic published an article that garnered irks, behind the case of Texas v. Jesus Christ- a pseudonym for the case of Ramirez v. Collier 142 S Ct. 1264 2022 - the question that arose was whether a person condemned to death has rights, particularly, the right to have a minister lay hands on him and offer a ‘commendation of dying’ prayer as of last rites before execution. This article will highlight the rights available for inmates awaiting execution, and ways through which justice can be done even for those condemned to death.

Introduction

Nigeria is among the 54 countries that still retain the death penalty in their statutes, there have been arguments for and against the abolition of the death penalty, and over the recent years, such disputes have grown to be at the heart of the debate for the right to life to be unqualified in the provisions guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) hereinafter referred to as the Constitution. 

The right to life as provided in section 33(1) of the Constitution is the right from which other rights flow, its cruciality cannot be overstated as the deprivation of the right to life no longer affords one grounds for the enforceability of other rights. However, the right to life is not guaranteed. Its exceptions include the deprivation of the right to life in the execution of a sentence pronounced by a court for a criminal offence one has been found guilty of, defence of both persons and property and suppression of riots, et al. 

Body

As of 2022, the Nigerian Correctional Service reported that over 3,000 prison inmates are on death row and are still awaiting approval for execution, Amnesty International has said that Nigeria has the highest population of death row inmates in sub-Saharan Africa with the last execution taking place in 2016 a sharp contrast from the numerous executions of the dark military era. The reason for the accumulation of such numbers is the fact that most Governors have refused to append their signature as a mark of approval for the execution of such inmates. Hence, it's intriguing to know if these inmates said to be living on “borrowed time” have provisional rights. The offences that carry the death penalty are:

1. Armed Robbery – Section 402 (2)(a)(b) Criminal Code Act (CC) Cap 77 Laws of the Federation (LFN)

1990

2. Murder – Section 319(1), CC s 221 of the Penal Code (PC), Cap 345 LFN

3. (a) Treason – Section 37(1) and 38 of the Criminal Code, section 410 and 411 of the Penal Code

(b) Conspiracy to Treason – section 37(2) CC

(c) Instigating invasion of Nigeria – Section 38 CC

4. Treachery – Section 49A(1) of the Criminal Code

5. Fabricating false evidence leading to the conviction to death of an innocent person - section 515(2) of

the Penal Code 6. Aiding suicide of a child or Lunatic - section 227 of the Penal Code

7. Robbery and Firearms Decree No. 5 of 1984

8. Under the various Sharia Penal Laws applicable to 12 States in Northern Nigeria, these offences carry

the death penalty:

(a) Zina (adultery)

(b) rape

(c) sodomy

(d) incest

(e) witchcraft and juju offences

Constitutionality of the death penalty

In Onuoha Kalu v. The State (1998) 12 SCNJ, the Supreme Court on the issue of the Constitutionality of the death sentence held that:

Section 30 (1) of the 1979 Constitution (which is equivalent to Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution), which guarantees the right to life, provides for a qualified right and not an unqualified right. The qualification is that the right to life is not violated when life is taken in the execution of a court order.

The Supreme Court also reiterated this point in Okoro v. The State (1998) 2 SCNJ 84. The Constitutionality of the death penalty suggests that whenever the court orders or pronounces the deprivation of the right to life of a person, such person cannot plead the enforcement of other rights to escape such pronouncement. It goes further to connote that the right to life is qualified even as a stationary of other rights. The Constitution makes it plain without mincing words, areas in which the right to life can be lost, for instance, 33(2) (C) of the Constitution which provides an exception “for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny” is interpreted appropriately as a punishment for coup plotters with section 1(2) of the Constitution prescribing the provision:

The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or art thereof, except by the provisions of this Constitution.

SOME OF THE RIGHTS AVAILABLE FOR INMATES AWAITING EXECUTION.

Right to Dignity of Human Persons

In the case of Nemi v. Attorney General of Lagos State & Anor (1996) 6 NWLR PT 452 P.42, Uwaifo, J.C.A. contending on if inmates with such status; inmates awaiting execution, had such rights, he asked unequivocally: 

…the aspect that a condemned prisoner has no right to life, cannot enforce any fundamental rights, and is therefore as good as dead is quite perturbing. It needs some questions and comments. Does it mean that a condemned prisoner can be lawfully starved to death by the prison authorities? Can he be lawfully punished, by a slow and systematic elimination of his limbs one after another, until he is dead? Could his legs be soaked with petrol and set on fire under a pot to boil rice by someone wearing a smiling face while this is going on since he is as good as dead and without fundamental rights? Would any of these amount to inhuman treatment or torture? Is a condemned prisoner, not a person or individual? Some questions gravely touch not only the heart but also bring section 31(1) (a) of the Constitution into focus even in cases of condemned prisoners.

s

The Court held in the resolvance of this case that a condemned inmate still had the right to be treated with dignity befitting of a human, and thus, even as a provisional right, all persons in charge of taking care of such individual are to treat the individual humanely. The right extends to torture, the Court further held that the solitary confinement of the plaintiff for 8 years amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, unfit for even someone condemned to death.

Right to Fair Hearing

An inmate condemned to death has the right to exhaust his appeal options and thus the right to a legal representative if he so wishes to appeal the case. This right is guaranteed by section 36 (6)(C) of the Constitution. In the State v. Uzodinma (1982) 1 NCR 27, the Supreme Court held that regardless of what law is in force, any law that purports to deny an accused person of his right to a legal representative, legal aid, or to waive such right of fair hearing away makes null and void the proceeding. The right goes further to include a trial where such representative furnished individually or by the state is to defend the accused without prejudice. 

Right to Delay Execution

This right is available for pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers. 

Conjugal Rights

While this might sound frivolous, no section of the Prison Act, LFN 1990 denies an inmate the right to be joined in matrimony with an inmate or an outsider. Although the laws do not envisage an issue arising as to the validity of a marriage undergone by a person on death row, such conjugal rights can be said to stand.

 Conclusion 

In Josiah v. The State (1985)1 NWLR (PT.1) 125 Justice Oputa JSC examining the tripartite nature of Justice had said:

“And justice is not a one-way traffic… it is a three-way traffic: Justice for the appellant accused of a heinous crime of murder, justice for the victim, the murdered man, the deceased- whose blood is crying for vengeance, and finally, justice for the society at large- the society whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the criminal act complained of…”

The question of justice for those who have had their right to life deprived yet are placed in limbo awaiting execution under the most inhuman conditions is worth asking for; as an inquiry and a means for bringing to burden our conscience. It was Nelson Mandela who said “No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.” In this case, how we treat our lowest citizens, those we have out of justice been made reprobate is a telling of our society.  

Reference

 

1 The state of Texas v Jesus Christ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/texas-v-jesus/620144/ <accessed 21 April 2024>

2 Death penalty: Why Nigeria can no longer sit on the fence — Lawyers https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/01/death-penalty-why-nigeria-can-no-longer-sit-on-the-fence-lawyers/ <accessed 21 April 2024>

3 Fundamental Rights of Prisoners: A Perspective by Abayomi Oyebola

4 NIGERIA COUNTRY REPORT ON DEATH PENALTY APPLICATION by UDO JUDE ILO