Lawmaker Solomon Bob, representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency of River State in the House of Representatives, has explicitly explained why he’s pushing for the elimination of the constitutional immunity granted to Nigeria’s vice president, governors, and deputy governors under Section 308 of the Constitution. He contended that the immunity clause, which was meant to shield leaders from external influences, has instead made anarchy, corruption, and impunity practicable. Bob questions why comparable accountability cannot be maintained in Nigeria, as it is done in other countries overseas.
His proposal aims to limit the president’s immunity to acts that are within the purview of their constitutional responsibilities and contends that governors and vice presidents do not need immunity at all. He draws attention to the risks of absolute immunity, such as the ability of governors to commit serious crimes without incurring immediate repercussions. Bob is adamantly opposing giving federal lawmakers immunity, seeing it as needless and ineffective. He highlights the importance of accountability, citing U.S. examples where officials are promptly removed for misconduct.
Numerous political leaders abused immunity in history.
Bob’s advocate to abolish immunity is a reflection of the general discontent with the way it has affected Nigerian governance. He noted that the clause has produced a class of leaders who function above the law, enabling them to act unethically and corruptly without worrying about facing instant consequences. Bob argues that the fundamental democratic tenet that all people are equal before the law is compromised by immunity. By protecting officeholders from punishment, it unintentionally encourages misbehavior and slows justice, frequently to the harm of the public. The proponents believe that taking down this barrier is essential to improving accountability, openness, and public confidence in government.
Moreover, the immunity clause has had a profoundly negative effect on Nigeria’s legal and political structures. This legal protection has made corruption, which is already a major problem in the nation, even worse by giving officeholders more confidence to act arbitrarily. There have been numerous cases of political leaders abusing immunity in Nigeria across history. One such scenario is the 2005 case of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, the former governor of Bayelsa State, who was linked to a significant Corruption scandal involving the misappropriation of public funds while in office.
Yahaya Bello case shows how immunity may be abused.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Alamieyeseigha could not be prosecuted until he was impeached, allowing him time to manipulate the system and even escape from the UK where he was eventually arrested. Also, the case of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, who is accused with 19 counts of Money Laundering of up to ₦80.2 billion, demonstrates how political influence and immunity may be abused to absolve political officials of accountability. Before appearing in court last month, Bello had been evading prosecution by playing hide-and-seek with the EFCC since he resigned as governor in January 2024.
The bill is presently being discussed in the National Assembly as part of continuous efforts to reform the constitution. While the bill has sparked debate and garnered attention, it has not yet cleared the legislative requirements to become law. Critics argue that this action could divert attention from administration as these leaders might be subject to pointless litigation while in power. Rather than removing the clause completely, some have proposed changing it to exclude criminal offenses and restrict immunity to civil cases.
Related Article: Stakeholders call for equality in politics
Cases involving Yahaya Bello and others like it highlight the severity of the situation advocated by lawmaker Solomon and the need to address structural problems that have long dogged the country’s government structure. Despite the fact that many lawmakers acknowledged the bill’s merits, its passage is likely to be challenging as it needs the backing of numerous parliamentarians, many of whom may have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Additionally, the success of the measure will be greatly influenced by the political will and general public opinion to enact such modifications.