JURIDICA

Criminal Law in Nigeria in the Last ast 53

Years: Trends and Prospects for the Future

Akeem Olajide BELLO1

Abstract: Objectives: The article is an overview of developments in substantive criminal law in

Nigeria in the last 53 years. It examines the sharing of constitutional legislative powers to enact
criminal laws between the federal (national) government and the state (local) governments.
governments. The
examination of federal laws revealed proactive legislative activity responding to emerging local and
international criminal law issues. The main development at the state level is the introduction by States
in Northern Nigeria of Sharia Penal Codes and the enactment of the Criminal Law of Lagos State
2011. A common trend is the entrenchment of death penalty as punishment for some crimes.
Implications:: While federal criminal laws have responded to emerging realties, state criminal laws
have generally
rally failed to respond to emerging issues at the state level. Consequently, in most of the
southern states criminal laws introduced in 1916 have continued to apply. Value: The paper
demonstrates the need for southern States to reform their criminal laws to to respond to emerging
realties, the federal government to respond to some outstanding criminal law issues and calls for a
suspension of death penalty and a revaluation of its continued relevance.
Keywords: federal offences; state offences, corruption, death penalty; Sharia

1. Introduction
The Criminal Law is an important vehicle not only for maintaining law and order,
it also signals society’s disapproval of acts and omissions which are injurious to
society and violates moral norms which are worthy of legal protection.
Consequently, the Criminal
minal Law should keep pace with evolution of society and
respond to contemporary realties that require its intervention. New crimes may be
created to cover emerging realities. The core of substantive Criminal Law in
Nigeria in 1960 (when Nigeria became independent
independent from Britain) bore the imprints

1
Lecturer Grade I, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria.
34-01,
01, Lagos State, Nigeria. Tel.: +2348155489004, fax: +234(1) 493.2660. Corresponding author:
[email protected].

AUDJ, vol. 9, no. 1/2013,

3, pp. 15
15-37

15
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

of Nigeria’s British colonial heritage. Fifty three years on, the core of Nigeria’s
substantive criminal law still largely retain English concepts of criminal
responsibility and principles. With the exception of the Northern States (to a
certain extent) and Lagos State, the core of substantive criminal law in Nigeria has
remained the same. There has however been tremendous legislative activity with
respect to criminal legislations falling within federal legislative powers. Despite the
difference in the scale of reform and legislative initiatives at the Federal and State
Levels, a common trend is noticeable.
The objective of the paper is to examine the extent to which the legislative powers
to enact criminal laws in Nigeria have been used to respond to emerging realties
both on the domestic and international law scene. Part II examines the
constitutional framework for substantive criminal laws in Nigeria (as distinct from
the laws regulating criminal procedure and proceedings). Part III highlights and
analyses legislative activities with respect to Federal offences. Part IV highlights
legislative activities at the State level. Part V examines the common trend in the
developments of substantive criminal law in the last 53 years. Part VI evaluates the
extent to which developments in substantive criminal law at the federal and state
levels have responded to domestic and international criminal law issues. Part VII is
the conclusion and projects into the future.

2. Constitutional Framework for Criminal Laws

The legislative competence of the Parliament of the Federation of Nigeria and the
respective Legislatures for the Northern, Western and Eastern Regions of Nigeria
in 1960 over the creation of offences were set out in the Constitution of the
Federation of Nigeria 19601 (hereafter “1960 Constitution”). The Constitution vests
in the Parliament the power to make laws for the peace, order and good
government of Nigeria with respect to any matter included in the Legislative Lists.2
The 1960 Constitution provided for the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative
Lists.3 The legislature of the Regions (regions subsequently became 36 States)
could make laws with respect to any matter that is not included in the Exclusive
Legislative List.4 The implication of the scheme of sharing of legislative powers

1 nd
2 Schedule to The Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1960, L.N. 159 of 1960 contained in
the Annual Volume of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1960.
2
1960 Constitution s. 64(1)(a).
3
See The Schedule to the 1960 Constitution.
4
1960 Constitution, s. 64 (5).
16
 JURIDICA

under the 1960 Constitution is that the Parliament was competent to make laws on
matters on the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists, while the Legislature of
the Regions could only make laws on matters not listed in the Exclusive
Legislative List and the matters listed on the Concurrent Legislative List. Matters
not listed in the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists are said to fall within
the Residual Legislative List within the competence of the Regions. It is important
to add also that the Legislative powers of the Parliament extended to any matter
incidental or supplementary to any matter referred to elsewhere in the Exclusive
Legislative List and any incidental and supplementary matter also include offences
for the purposes of the Exclusive and the Concurrent Legislative Lists.1
The creation of offences under the 1960 Constitution as a separate and independent
power is not mentioned in the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists. This
implies that the power to create offences generally fell within the legislative
competence of the Regions. The offences that fell within the legislative
competence of the Parliament include: (a) offences against the Nigerian State or the
Federal Government, its agencies, functionaries or property; (b) offences against
public order and public safety (other than offences against the federal or state
governments); (c) creation of criminal offences with respect to matters on the
Exclusive Legislative List; and (d) creation of offences with respect to matters on
the Concurrent Legislative List. The implication of the scheme of sharing
Legislative powers under the 1960 Constitution was that the States had the pre-
eminence with respect to legislating on crimes generally. The 1963,2 19793 and
1999 Constitutions4 retained the scheme of sharing legislative powers by
empowering the Federal Government to legislate solely on matters contained in the
Exclusive Legislative List and jointly with the States on matters contained in the
Concurrent Legislative List subject to any Federal law that has covered the field.
States are also empowered to legislate on matters not listed in the Exclusive
Legislative List.
The leading case on sharing of legislative powers over criminal laws under the
1999 Constitution is the case of Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney

1
See item 44 on the Exclusive Legislative List and Part III of the First Schedule to the 1960
Constitution. See also item 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the
1999 Constitution and Part III of the Second Schedule.
2
Constitution of the Federation, 1963, s. 69(1)(a), (2), & (5).
3
See Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, s. 4(2), (3), (4), and (7).
4
See Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, s. 4(2), (3), (4), and (7).
17
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

General of the Federation & 35Ors. (the Anti-Corruption Case).1 The issue before
the Supreme Court in that case inter alia is whether the National Assembly had the
legislative competence to enact the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Act 20002 (the “ICPC Act”). The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in
which it upheld the constitutionality of the ICPC Act. By a unanimous decision, the
Court held that the ICPC Act was valid and constitutional. The Court held further
that the Federal and State Governments have concurrent powers in order to prohibit
corrupt practices. The Court construed the word ‘State’ used in section 15(5) of the
1999 Constitution as imposing an obligation on the Federal, State and Local
Governments to abolish corruption. The implication of the decision is that both the
National Assembly and the House of Assembly of the States can make laws on
corruption. The Court further held that although the power to legislate on
corruption is vested in the National Assembly and House of Assembly of the
States, when a conflict arises in the exercise of the power, the legislation by the
National Assembly will prevail by virtue of section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution.
The Criminal Code, Schedule to the Criminal Code Law (hereafter the CC) was the
principal Criminal Law legislation applicable in Southern Nigeria in 1960.3 The
Penal Code Law (hereafter the PC) was the principal Criminal Law statute
applicable in Northern Region of Nigeria in 1960.4 In addition to the PC, the
Federal Parliament enacted the Penal Code (Northern States) Federal Provisions
Act5 (hereafter the Federal Act) to make the provisions on federal offences in the
CC6 applicable in Northern Nigeria. The rationale for the Federal Act was to ensure
ensure conformity between the PC provisions relating to Federal offences and
those in force elsewhere in the Federation. (Richardson, 1987, p. 321)
While the above analysis represented the general feature of the scheme of
legislative powers over criminal laws, a noticeable exception during the regimes of
Military Governments is that the Federal Military Governments are usually

1
[2002] 27 WRN 1.
2
Cap. C31 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
3
The CC was introduced into Northern Nigeria in 1994 by proclamation vide Ordinance No. 10 of
1904. It was extended to the whole of Nigeria in 1916.
4
The Penal Code Law No. 18 of 1959 was enacted by the Legislature of Northern Region to replace
the CC in Northern Nigeria in 1959 following dissatisfaction with the CC which was based essentially
on English Law.
5
No. 25 1960 now Cap. P3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
6
The provisions cover offences against the state, sedition, customs offences, offences relating to
copyright, offences relating to ships and wharves, offences relating to coins and notes, offences
relating to revenue stamps, offences relating to weight and measures amongst others.
18
 JURIDICA

empowered to make laws with respect to any matter whatsoever. Starting with the
Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 19671 the combined effect of
sections 1(2) and 5 of the Decree is to empower the Supreme Military Council to
legislate on any matter whatsoever.

3. Developments in Federal Offences

There has been tremendous activity in the enactment of federal offences in the last
53 years covering a wide range of matters falling within federal legislative powers.
The Federal offences will be examined under the following sub-headings: (i)
Corruption; (ii) Economic Crimes; (iii) Other offences including regulatory
offences; and (iv) Retroactive penal legislations.

3.1. Legislations on Bribery and Corruption

In the last 53 years there have been legislations at both Federal and State levels on
corruption. For the purpose of convenience, the provisions on corruption under
State laws will be discussed in this part of the paper in conjunction with
developments under Federal Laws.
The main provision in the CC on bribery is section 98, 98A and 98B. The
definition of the offence of bribery revolves around bribery involving a public
official. There is a general dissatisfaction (Osipitan & Oyewo, 1999, p. 257) with
the provisions of anti bribery statutes in Nigeria. The general perception is that the
laws are unclear complex (Okonkwo, 1992, p. 355) and difficult to interpret and
apply (Akinseye, 2000, p. 47). The main problem is the use of the word “corruptly”
to denote the fault element of the offences. The word “corruptly” is not defined.
The problems associated with the non-definition of the word corruptly still remain
in Nigeria despite the valiant attempt of Bairamian J to define the meaning of
“corruptly” in Biobaku v Police.2 His Lordship explained the essence of
“corruptly” as follows: “…the receiving or the offering of some benefits as a
reward or inducement to sway or deflect the officer from the honest and impartial
discharge of his duties- in other words as a bribe for corruption or its price.”3
The attempt to ascribe a meaning to the term “corruptly” by Bairamian J is

1
Decree no. 8 of 1967.
2
(1951) 20 NLR 30.
3
Ibid, at p. 31.
19
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

commendable because, beyond the vague term “corruptly” he sought to articulate

the policy underlying the criminalization of receipt of property or benefit of any
kind by a public officer in relation to his official duties. The approach adopted by
the Court however fails to achieve the objective of clarity and certainty. The
clarification or definition of the meaning of corruptly is too important to be left
with the judge. What constitute “corruptly” should be clearly set out in any law
prohibiting bribery.
In contrast, the main provisions on bribery by a public official under the PC did not
use the word ‘corruptly.’ The offence of bribery under the PC covers a person
being or expecting to be a public servant who accepts, or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person
any gratification whatever whether pecuniary or otherwise, other than lawful
remuneration. The receipt of the gratification is as a motive or reward for: (a) doing
or forbearing to do any official act; or (b) showing or forbearing to show in the
exercise of his official functions favour or disfavor to any person; or (c) rendering
or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person with any department
of the public service or with any public servant.1 The drafting of the wording of the
offence under section 115 of the PC is clearer and less convoluted. The language of
the PC is considerably simpler and easier to understand than that of the CC (Ostien,
2007, pp. 14-15) and its therefore an improvement on the definition of bribery
under the CC. The definition of the offence of bribery under the PC however still
revolves around bribery involving a public official.
The Federal Military Government intervened in the law on bribery in 1975 with the
enactment of the Corrupt Practices Decree 19752 (hereinafter the 1975 Decree).
The definition of the general offence of bribery under the 1975 Decree although
attempted to simplify the offence of bribery but unfortunately still retained the
word “corruptly.”3 It also failed to successfully remedy the public/private
distinction in the law relating to bribery despite an attempt do so through the
provision of section 1 of the 1975 Decree. The Decree was repealed on 28
September, 1979. The last intervention of the Military Government in the law of
bribery was vide the provisions of the Recovery of Public Property (Special
Military Tribunals) Decree 1984 as amended by Decrees No. 14 of 1984 and No.
1
Penal Code, s. 115(a)(b)(c).
2
No. 38 of 1975, Annual Volume of the Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1975.
3
Ss. 1(1) and 2. The Decree however contained other specific offences of bribery of member of the
Supreme Military Council, the National Council of States or the Federal or State Executive Council-
s. 7 and bribery of member of a public body- s. 8.
20
 JURIDICA

21 of 1986. The Decrees were enacted following the Military takeover of

Government on 31st of December, 1983. The Decree sought to punish any public
officer who has: (i) engaged in corrupt practices or has corruptly enriched himself
or any other person; (ii) by virtue of his office contributed to the economic
adversity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; (iii) in any other way been in breach
of the Code of Conduct; or (iv) attempted, aided, counseled, procured or conspired
with any person to commit any of the aforementioned offences. The Decree was
remarkable for violating the constitutional prohibition of retroactivity of penal
laws.
The enactment of the ICPC Act in 2000 to specifically deal with the problem of
corruption provided a unique opportunity to improve on the provisions of the CC.
The writer disagrees with the view that the ICPC Act is a well-crafted piece of anti-
corruption legislation in the history of Nigeria (Ocehje, 2001, pp. 177-191). This is
because the ICPC Act retained the antiquated word “corruptly” in the definition of
bribery offences under sections 8 and 9. The ICPC Act also failed to successfully
address the focus of the CC and PC on bribery on only cases involving public
officers. All the offences of bribery in the ICPC Act were defined in relation to
cases involving public officers. The provisions of the Sharia Penal Code Law of
Zamfara State1 introduced around the same time as the ICPC Act and the Sharia
Code of other States criminalizing bribery involving public official is substantially
similar to the provisions of sections 115 – 118 of the PC. The Sharia Penal Code
fails to make any meaningful improvement on the provisions of the PC.
One major problem of the laws so far examined is the focus on bribery involving
only public officers. The laws do not cover cases of bribery involving only private
sector officials. There is support for the view that there is no justification for
maintaining the distinction between public officers and non public officers
(Adedokun, 1991, p. 1). The author agrees with the view that if “we attempt to
clean up the public sector without correspondingly doing the same for the private
sector, the cankerworm will continuously contaminate the public sector
(Adedokun, 1991, p. 1).

1
Law No. 10 of 2000.
21
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

3.2. Legislations on Economic Crimes

Between 1962 and 2012 a number of legislations were enacted to punish economic
and financial crimes. The principal legislations in the period include the
Counterfeit Currency (Special) Provisions Act; 1the Exchange Control and (Anti
Sabotage) Decree2 now replaced by the Foreign Exchange (Monitoring and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act;3 Miscellaneous Offences Act;4 the Money
Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011;5 Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related
Offences Act 2006;6 the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial
Malpractices in Banks Act.7 A major problem with the enforcement of these laws
on economic and financial crimes is the lack of dedicated institutional capacity to
enforce the Laws.
The establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (hereafter
the Commission) by the EFCC Act provided a dedicated institutional capacity to
ensure the diligent enforcement of the laws. The Commission was saddled with the
responsibility of enforcing some of the aforementioned legislations and any other
law or regulation relating to economic and financial crimes including the CC and
the PC. Despite the high profile nature and publicity of the work of the
Commission, available evidence indicates that the Commission had little real
success in the prosecution of ‘nationally prominent leaders.’8 Between 2003 and
July 2011 only 30 nationally prominent leaders were charged with only four
convictions.9 Only one conviction was obtained at trial, with others obtained
through plea bargain that involved dropping some of the most serious charges

1
Enacted as Decree No 22 of 1984 now contained in Cap. C35 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
2004.
2
No. 7 of 1984.
3
Cap. F 34 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
4
Decree No. 20 of 1984 now contained in Cap. M17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
5
The first Money Laundering Act was enacted in 1995 as Decree No. 3 of 1995 repealed and
replaced by the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act No. 7 of 2003 which also repealed and replaced
by the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004.
6
The 2006 Act repealed and replaced the Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act
No. 13 of 1995 and the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences (Amendment) Act,
2005.
7
Enacted as Decree No 18 of 1994 now Cap. F2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
8
A term defined to ‘include current or former State Governors, and members of the federal Senate
and House of Representatives , as well as handful of other political figures who can without any
controversy be described as nationally prominent,’ see (2011). Corruption on Trial? The Record of
Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes. New York, Human Rights Watch at p. 17.
9
Ibid, at pp. 19 – 22.
22
 JURIDICA

against the defendants.1 The Commission however claims to have secured over 600
600 convictions, obtained forfeiture with respect to 459 units of real estate, 593
units of vehicles/ oil vessels, 404 units of bank accounts and 183,627 units of other
assets since its establishment.2 The Commission also claims to have recovered over
over US $11 Billion.3
An aspect of Commission’s work that has attracted some criticism relates to use of
plea bargaining in the prosecution of cases by EFCC. The issue of plea bargaining
is however concerned with criminal procedure, and is therefore outside the scope
of this paper. (Oguche, 2012, pp. 26-55).

3.3. Legislations on Other Offences

The other federal offences can roughly be divided into three: (i) legislations
motivated by the desire of the Government to respond to international concerns and
obligations assumed under international law; (ii) legislations responding to purely
local issues; and (iii) legislations creating regulatory offences.
Legislations in the first category include the National Drug Law Enforcement
Agency Act4 the (hereafter the NDLEA Act), Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition)
Law Enforcement and Administration Act5 (hereafter the Trafficking Act). The
NDLEA Act was enacted to deal with the then growing involvement of Nigerians
in illicit trafficking in drugs and narcotics and to fulfil obligations under
international Conventions on illicit trafficking in drugs.6 The NDLEA Act
established the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (hereafter the Agency)
and saddled it with the responsibility of enforcement and administration of the Act
including the investigation and prosecution of offences under the Act.7 The main
offence addressed by the NDLEA Act are the importation, exportation, selling and

1
Ibid at 22.
2
Oscarline Onwuemenyi, “EFCC Recovers U.S.$ 11 Billion, 459 Houses, 593 Vehicles/Oil Vessels,”
Vanguard, 28 May 2011 http://allafrica.com/stories/201105302012.html (accessed on 27 September
2011).
3
Ibid.
4
Enacted as Decree No. 48 of 1989 and now contained in Cap. N30 Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria 2004.
5
Cap. T23 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
6
The Conventions are the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 as amended by the 1972
Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic drugs, and the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances and the United Nation’s Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotics and Psychotropic
Substances. The international instruments have been ratified by Nigeria.
7
NDLEA Act, s. 3.
23
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

knowingly possessing drugs known as cocaine, LSD, heroine or any other similar
drugs.1 Other offences include occupier unlawfully permitting use of premises for
drug activities, conspiracy, tampering with drugs and offences in relation to drug
abuse. The NDLEA Act made ample provisions to ensure the tracing and interim
forfeiture of proceeds of any illegal dealing in trafficking in narcotics and
psychotropic substances before conviction2 and forfeiture after conviction.3 The
work of the Agency has received international acclaim. The United States of
America recently delisted Nigeria from the list of major drug trafficking countries
due to the laudable efforts o the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency
(NDLEA).4
The Trafficking Act was enacted in 2003 to respond to international concerns about
the role of Nigeria in the global illicit trade of trafficking in persons and
international obligations assumed by Nigeria.5 The Trafficking Act established the
National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons and Other Related
Matters (NAPTIP) and empowered it to enforce and administer the provisions of
the Act amongst other responsibilities.6 The Trafficking Act commendably
responded to the international dimensions of trafficking in persons by specifically
criminalizing the exportation and importation from and into Nigeria of persons
under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person or knowing that such
person will be forced or seduced into prostitution.7 The response to the
international dimension of trafficking in persons is also evident in the offences
relating to procurement of any person under eighteen, offence relating to promoting
foreign travels which promote prostitution, procuring the defilement of any person
by threats, fraud or administering drugs, and unlawful forced labour.
The impressive performance of the NAPTIP over the years in prosecuting persons
involved in trafficking in persons and assisting trafficking victims has not gone

1
NDLEA Act, s. 11.
2
NDLEA Act, ss. 36 and 37.
3
NDLEA Act, ss. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.
4
This was contained in 2010 Annual Drug Certification Report presented to the United States
Congress. See Chinedu Eze, (18 September 2010). US Strikes-off Nigeria from Major Drug Nations’
List” This Day Live, available on line at http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/us-strikes-off-nigeria-
from-major-drug-nations-list/78615/ accessed on 10 March 2013.
5
Nigeria is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and one
the Protocol made pursuant to the Convention, the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish
Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. Nigeria signed the Convention and the
Protocol on 13 December 2000 and ratified it on 28th of June 2001..
6
The Trafficking Act, ss. 1(1) and 4.
7
The Trafficking Act, s. 11.
24
 JURIDICA

unnoticed. Nigeria has recently been elevated to Tier 1 of Trafficking in Persons

List for 2001 (TIP) issued by the United States Department of State which
indicates that Nigerian Government has fully complied with minimum standards
for the elimination of trafficking. The writer agrees with the view that the problem
now is not with the laws, but with the administration of the Laws (Ogungbe, 2007,
pp. 362-379). Consequently effective enforcement and due administration of the
Laws is important to reduce the scale of the trafficking problem in Nigeria.
The second category of federal legislation relate to responses to purely local issues
such as the Treason and Other Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Act,1 the Civil
Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Act.2 The Robbery and Firearms (Special
Provisions) Act3 (hereafter the Robbery Act) is another legislation that was enacted
enacted to respond to the then prevalent problem of armed robbery post Nigerian
civil war.
The third category of Federal Legislation relate to regulatory offences created
pursuant to matters falling within Federal competence. A regulatory offence is a
crime that is not inherently wrong, but that is illegal because it is prohibited by
legislation.4 A distinction is often drawn between wicked types of conduct such as
murder “mala in se” and on the other hand the technical offences “mala
prohibita” (Okonkwo, 1992, p. 20). Legislations on regulatory offences include
offences created under such statutes and offences created under Regulations made
pursuant to the statutes: (i) National Environmental Standards and Regulations
Enforcement Agency (Establishment) Act;5 (ii) the National Agency for Food and
Drug Administration and Control Act6and (iv) Offences created under statutes
regulating professional bodies.

3.4. Retroactive Penal Legislations

The prohibition of retroactive penal legislations has been a feature of the
constitutional guarantee of human rights since the provision of section 21(7) of the

1
Enacted as Decree No. 1 of 1986.
2
Enacted as Decree No. 2 of 1987.
3
Original enacted as Decree No. 47 of 1970 was amended by Decree No. 48 of 1971 and Decree No.
8 of 1974. The Decree lapsed with the coming into force of the 1979 Constitution by virtue of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Certain Consequential Repeals, etc) Decree No. 105
of 1979.
4
http://law.yourdictionary.com/regulatory-offense (Accessed on 10 March 2013).
5
No. 25 of 2007.
6
Cap. N1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
25
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

1960 Constitution. This fundamental guarantee has however been trampled upon in
the course of developments in substantive criminal law under Military
Governments. An example of such retroactive penal legislation was the Recovery
of Public Property (Special Military Tribunals) Decree1 made retroactive to cover
offences under the Decree committed since 1st October 1979.2 The Decree was
enacted to deal with corrupt practices of public officers who served between 1979
and 1983. There was indeed no justification for backdating the Decree as there
were ample provisions of existing laws such as the provisions of the CC and PC to
deal with such conducts. The provision of section 36(8) of the 1999 Constitution
precludes the enactment of retroactive penal legislation.

4. Developments in State Offences

There were virtually no significant developments in State offences until the return
to constitutional democracy in 1999. A factor that might have accounted for this is
that during Military Regimes (unlike what obtain in a constitutional democracy)
the Federal Government can make laws on any matter whatsoever thereby leaving
the States with very limited legislative powers. The first major development in
States offences occurred with the introduction of Sharia Penal Code in States in
Northern Nigeria. The other major development in State offences occurred with the
enactment of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011 and the recent enactment of
laws in some eastern States to respond to the phenomenon of kidnapping.

4.1. Developments in Sharia Penal Code Law

One of the central motivations for introducing Sharia Penal Code Law in Northern
Nigeria is the desire to find a cure for the many social ills besting the
predominantly Muslim North (Ostien, 2007, p. 3). Whether the Sharia Penal Codes
introduced by States in Northern Nigeria has reduced the social ills however
remains to be seen. The provisions of the PC criminalizing conduct contrary to
Islamic values such as consumption of alcohol,3 and adultery4 have continued to be

1
No. 3 of 1984.
2
Recovery of Public Property (Special Military Tribunals)(Amendment) (No. 2) Decree of 1984. See
also the Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Decree No. 20 of 1984 introduced death penalty
by firing squad for any person convicted of dealing with selling, buying etc of cocaine or similar
drugs.
3
Penal Code, s. 403.
4
Penal Code, ss. 387 and 388.
26
 JURIDICA

be criminalised under the Sharia Penal Codes. Section 148 of the Harmonised
Sharia Penal Code also criminalised knowingly and voluntarily drinking alcohol or
any other intoxicant. Generally the offences only apply to Muslims and the
provisions of the PC continue to apply to non-Muslims.
The Sharia Penal Codes introduced some offences which have continued to
generate controversy. The offence of theft or sariqah is punishable at first instance
with amputation of the right hand, second offence amputation of the left foot, third
offence amputation of the left hand, fourth offence amputation of the right foot and
subsequent theft for a term not exceeding one year.1 The provisions of sections 126
and 127 of the Sharia Penal Code of Zamfara State while slightly changing the
definition of the offence of adultery under sections 387 and 388 of the PC has
rechristened the offence as “zina” and imposed a sentence of one hundred lashes of
caning and imprisonment for one year where the offender is unmarried and a
sentence of stoning to death where the offender is married. The following offences
when committed by a married man attracts the punishment of stoning to death: (i)
rape;2 (ii) sodomy;3 and (iii) incest4 The cases of two women convicted of the
offence of zina and sentenced to death by stoning attracted public outcry and
international concern. The first was the case of Commissioner of Police v. Yakubu
Tudu and Safiyatu Hussaini (Ostien, 2007, pp. 17-51) who was sentenced to death
by stoning in October 2001 for allegedly having a child with a married neighbour.
She successfully challenged her conviction on appeal. The second was the case of
Commissioner of Police v. Aminu Lawal and Yahayya Muhhamed5 who was also
convicted of zina on 20th of March 2002. Like Hussaini she won her appeal against
conviction at the Sharia Court of Appeal Katrina State on technical grounds
including inter alia the fact that the trial court was not properly constituted as
required by section 4(1) of the Sharia Court Law6 because contrary to the law the
judge did not sit with two court members.
The issue of the constitutionality of the punishment of stoning to death in the light
of the constitutional prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment was
not raised or considered at the trial and appellate courts in the above cases. Section

1
Zamfara Sharia Penal Code, ss. 144-145. See however section 147 which provides a list of
circumstances that will remit the penalty of amputation.
2
S. 129(b).
3
S. 131(b).
4
S. 133(b).
5
For proceedings and judgment see Philip Ostien, ibid at pp. 52- 107.
6
Law No. 5 of 2000 of Katisna State.
27
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

34(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right of respect to the dignity of the
human person and precludes subjecting any person to “torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment.” While the death penalty is allowed in Nigeria by section
33(1) of the 1999 Constitution, carrying it out in a manner that amounts to torture
or inhuman or degrading treatment in the writer’s view may violate the
constitutional protection. In the case of Uzoukwu v. Ezeonu II1 the Court of Appeal
in the judgment of Justice Niki Tobi defined inhuman treatment to mean a
“Treatment which is barbarous, uncouth, and cruel treatment: a treatment which
has no human feeling on the part of the person inflicting the barbarity or cruelty.”
The decision in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Furman v. Georgia2
holding that the power of the legislature to impose the death penalty is not
exempted from the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishments is instructive. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights in the
Soering v. U.K.3 also held that while the prohibition of inhuman and degrading
treatment does not per se outlaw the death penalty, it might be necessary to take
account of the manner in which the death sentence is imposed and the personal
circumstances of the condemned person. Having regard to the foregoing, the writer
agrees with the view that amputation of limbs and death by stoning are indeed a
form of torture,4 inhuman and degrading treatment and a violation of the right to
human dignity.
The assessment of impact of the implementation of Sharia Penal Codes in Northern
Nigeria is a difficult task. The initial expectations that Sharia would curb
corruption in government, enhance socio-economic welfare, reduce grassroots level
crime and ensure more efficient dispensation of justice have not been realised.5
There is little evidence that Sharia has reduced overall criminality in the twelve
Sharia States that have adopted Sharia Penal Code.6 The slight changes in the law

1
(1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 708.
2
(1972) 498 U.S. 238.
3
ECHR, Series A No. 161, Judgment of July 7 1989, 11 EHRR 439.
4
Ruud Peters, “ The Reintroduction of Sharia Criminal Law in Nigeria: New Challenges for the
Muslims of the North”
http://uva.academia.edu/RuudPeters/Papers/367800/_The_reintroduction_of_sharia_ criminal_
law_in_Nigeria_New_challenges_to_the_Muslims_of_the_North._in_S._Tellenbach_and_Th._Hanst
ein._Beitrage_zum_islamischen_Recht_IV._Frankfurt_a.M._Peter_Lang_2004_Leipziger_Beitrage_z
ur_Orientforschung_15_pp._9-23 accessed on 9 March 2013).
5
See International Crisis Group Africa Report No. 168, (20 December 2010). Northern Nigeria:
Background to Conflict, 20 at p. 17
6
Ibid.
28
 JURIDICA

in some States in Northern Nigeria relating to consumption and manufacture of

alcohol has not resulted in changing the consumption of alcohol in Northern
Nigeria by Muslims. In the words of a commentator, “not much has really changed
on the ground: the sinning continues.” (Ostien, 2007, p. 42). The initial enthusiasm
that followed the introduction of Shania in 2000 has waned over the years as State
Governments have exercised restraint in applying the harsher punishments and
Sharia has not been widely applied in some states.1

4.2. Other Major Developments in States Offences

A cursory look at the CC of States in Southern Nigeria reveals that some minor
amendments were introduced into the law since the introduction of the CC into the
whole of Nigeria in 1916. What has been lacking is any serious effort to undertake
a comprehensive reform of CC, in terms of underlying philosophy and
criminalisation policy. The Lagos State Government in 2008 set up a Criminal
Code Law Reform Committee (hereafter the Reform Committee) with a mandate to
undertake a reform of the CC and propose a draft Criminal Law Bill for Lagos
State. The Reform Committee proposed the Criminal Law of Lagos State Draft Bill
2009 which was eventually enacted as Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011(hereafter
Criminal Law 2011).
The Criminal Law 2011 has considerably modernised and simplified the provisions
of the Law. The provisions of the Law have been substantially reworded with the
goal of ensuring clarity and user friendliness. Many of the old offences have been
redefined and many provisions have been reviewed in response to academic
reviews calling for reforms. The Criminal law 2011 also introduced a number of
new offences such as: (i) offences related to the unauthorised access to any
program or data held on a computer and unauthorised modifications of the contents
of a computer; (ii) special offences designed to protect public property such as
unlawful interference with public property and unlawful conversion of public
property; (iii) offences relating to acts of terrorism; (iv) provisions increasing the
penalty for offences where special circumstances exist to aggravate the offence
such as hostility towards members of a particular ethnic, religious or racial groups.
The Criminal Law 2011 also reformed the law relating to sexual offences, assault
and in particular the law relating to the offence of stealing. The definition of things

1
See International Crisis Group Africa Report No. 168, (20 December 2010). Northern Nigeria:
Background to Conflict. 20 at p. 16.
29
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

capable of being stolen has now been widened to allow for fraudulent dealings
relating to land to be punished as stealing or obtaining by false pretences.
The Criminal Law 2011 did not reform the provisions of the law relating to the
imposition of the death penalty1 and has not provided any other exceptions to the
law prohibiting abortion except when abortion is required to save the life of the
mother.2
The other major development in relation to State Offences is the enactment of State
Legislations imposing death penalty for kidnapping offences. This would be
discussed under the subsequent part of the paper.

5. Common Trend in Substantive Criminal Law- The Death Penalty

This part discusses common trends in the developments of substantive criminal law
at both the Federal and State Offences. The common trend in the evolution of
federal and state offences in the last 53 years is the continued provision for death
penalty in the criminal Laws.
In the period under review, while the death penalty has continued to be used as
punishment for certain offences, it has been introduced and later removed as
punishment for certain other offences. The death penalty has always been imposed
for the offences of murder and treason.3 The punishment for the offence of armed
robbery was initially life imprisonment. The increase in the incidence of armed
robbery after the civil war necessitated the imposition of death penalty with the
enactment of Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree.4 The death
penalty has since remained the punishment for armed robbery.
The imposition of death penalty has been introduced and abolished for a number of
offences in the last 53 years. The following offences have at one time or the other
attracted the death penalty: (i) counterfeiting of Nigerian banknote; (ii) arson of
public building etc; (iii) tampering with oil pipelines; (iv) tampering with electric
and telephone cables: and (v) offences relating to drugs amongst others. The death
penalty for the foregoing offences was abolished and replaced with varying terms
of imprisonment by the Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Amendment

1
Section 15(1) of the Criminal Law 2011 retains the death penalty.
2
Criminal Law 2011, s. 201.
3
The death penalty was imposed for murder and treason in the Criminal Code introduced into
Northern Nigeria in 1904 and the Criminal Code applicable to the whole of Nigeria in 1916.
4
No. 47 of 1970.
30
 JURIDICA

Decree.1 Recent legislations have however, introduced death penalty for offences
relating to terrorism where death results2 and kidnapping offences3
The Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 (the Terrorism Act) according to its
explanatory memorandum was enacted for the prevention, prohibition and
combating of acts of terrorism, the financing of terrorism in Nigeria and for the
effective implementation of the Convention on the Prevention and Combating of
Terrorism and the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
The Terrorism Act prohibits acts of terrorism and defined various activities that
constitute acts of terrorism.4 The Act also contains provisions aimed at dealing
with sources of finance for terrorist activities and seizure of funds belonging to
terrorists.5
Various arguments have been canvassed for and against the death penalty. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to examine the arguments for and against the use of
the death penalty. There is no unanimity in the literature on whether the death
penalty should be retained (Okonkwo, 1990). One undeniable fact however is that
the introduction of the death penalty for offences other than murder and treason
were not preceded by any scientific effort to determine the usefulness of the death
penalty as an effective criminal sanction. With the exception of recent introduction
of the death penalty for offences of terrorism and kidnapping, all the cases of fresh
introduction of death penalty in the last fifty three years occurred during Military
Regimes. While available evidence does not support the efficacy of the death
penalty (Adeyemi, 1990, p. 284) it appears that public perception and opinion may
support the continued use of the death penalty for offences such as murder and
armed robbery (Okonkwo, 1990, p. 268). The recent Criminal Law of Lagos State
2011 although did not introduce death penalty for new offences however retained
its use for murder and armed robbery.6 A decision on the question of whether or
not to abolish the death penalty is one that has to be taken with great care.

1
No. 22 of 1986.
2
Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011, s. 4(2).
3
Akwa Ibom, Abia, Anambra, Imo and Rivers State are all reported to have enacted legislation
introducing death penalty for kidnapping. The Abia State’s Internal Security and Enforcement Law
2009 and Anambra State’s Criminal Code (Amendment) Law 2009 imposed death penalty for
kidnappers.
4
Terrorism Act. S. 1(1) & (2).
5
Ss. 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
6
It is important to note however that despite the retention of the death penalty, a practice has evolved
in Lagos State of commuting all death sentences to life imprisonment since the return to constitutional
democracy in 1999. This may be perceived as a tacit abolition of the death penalty in Lagos State.
31
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

Technically the 1999 Constitution1 and criminal laws allowing the death penalty at
the federal and State levels in Nigeria are within the provisions of article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which permit
countries to continue to use death penalty. This is however subject to the conditions
that the penalty is imposed only for serious crimes in accordance with the law in
force at the time of the commission of the crime and pursuant to a final judgement
rendered by a competent court.2 The execution of the appellant in the case of
Nasiru Bello v. Attorney General of Oyo State3 which took place before the
ratification of the ICCPR by the Nigerian Government (Nigeria ratified ICCPR on
29th July 1993) would have been a breach of its provisions. In that case, the
Supreme Court awarded damages against the Government of Oyo State, for
executing the appellant, when an appeal against his conviction and sentence of
death was still pending at the Court of Appeal. Nigeria has not ratified the Second
Optional Protocol to the ICCPR4 which provides that no one within the jurisdiction
jurisdiction of a State Party to the Protocol shall be executed and obliges each State
Party to take all necessary measure to abolish the death penalty within its
jurisdiction.5 The Protocol however allows a State Party to make a reservation at
the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death
penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a
military nature committed during wartime.6 The provision of article 9 of the
Protocol stating that the Protocol shall “extend to all parts of federal States without
any limitations or exceptions” poses a challenge to federal States.
The challenge is that in Nigeria both the Federal and the State Governments have
legislative powers to enact criminal laws and impose the death penalty. It is
however only the Federal Government that exercises treaty making powers.7
Before ratifying any treaty it will therefore be necessary for the Federal
1
Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution allows for the imposition of the death penalty after
conviction for a criminal law if the punishment is prescribed by law. In the case of Kalu v. The State
(1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 598) 531 the Supreme Court sustained the constitutional validity of the death
penalty in Nigeria.
2
Article 6 of the ICCPR. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General
Assembly
resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976.
3
(1986) 12 SC 1.
4
The Protocol was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 44/128 of 15
December 1989 and entered into force on 11 July 1991.
5
Article1.
6
Article 2(1).
7
Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution recognizes that treaties can only be made between the
Federation and any other country.
32
 JURIDICA

Government to ensure that the majority of States are agreeable to the abolition of
the death penalty. Building national consensus on abolishing the death penalty in a
multi ethnic and multi religious society like Nigeria is probably going to be a very
difficult task having regard to the controversy that trailed the introduction of Sharia
in Northern States. Indeed, where the National Assembly enacts an Act to
incorporate a treaty into Nigerian Law on matters not included within Exclusive
Legislative List, there is requirement that it shall be ratified by a majority of all the
House of Assembly of the States before the Act is assented to by the President.1
This provision makes it difficult for the President as head of the Federal
Government to ratify the Second Optional Protocol without first ensuring that there
is a consensus to abolish the death penalty in Nigeria amongst the majority of the
States. It is therefore not surprising that a country like United States of America
with similar constitutional arrangements has not ratified the Protocol.
Having regard to the foregoing, the way forward with respect to the issue of death
penalty in Nigeria is for the Federal and State Governments to suspend the
continued implementation of the death penalty and allow for consultations and
dialogue over the issue to shape future legislative intervention.

6. Evaluating Responses to Domestic and International Law Issues

Substantive criminal laws at the federal level have generally fulfilled obligations
assumed by Nigeria under international conventions. The principal international
conventions on bribery and corruption are the African Union Convention on
Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCC)21 and the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)3. The Nigerian Government has signed
and ratified these Conventions4. The obligations assumed by State parties to the
Conventions include taking legislative measures to criminalize the conducts
defined under the Conventions through new laws or amendments of existing ones5.

1
Section 12(2) & (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
2
The AUCC was adopted in Maputo on the 11 July 2003 and it entered into force on 5 August 2006.
3
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the UNCAC by Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003
and it entered into force on 14 December 2005.
4
The UNCAC was signed by the Nigerian Government on 9 December 2003 and ratified on 14
December 2004 <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html (visited on 15
January 2013). The AUCC was signed by the Nigerian Government on 16 December 2003 and
ratified on 29 September 2006 at: http://www.africa-
union.org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/List/African%20Convention%refor20on%20Combating%20C
orruption.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2013).
33
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

ones1. UNCAC and AUCC sets out the offences that State parties are obliged to
create under municipal laws. The criminalization of bribery under the Nigerian
statutes earlier examined has fulfilled the obligations assumed by Nigeria to
criminalize bribery involving public officers. The obligations to criminalize bribery
involving only private sector officials however still remain outstanding. The
Nigerian statutes examined on bribery should be amended to introduce provisions
criminalizing bribery involving only private sector employees.
The Nigerian government has also significantly fulfilled obligations assumed under
international Conventions related to illicit trafficking in drugs. The NDLEA Act
earlier examined has fulfilled the obligations assumed under international law to
criminalize illicit trafficking in drugs and other issues associated with illicit
trafficking. Similarly the Trafficking Act earlier examined has also fulfilled the
obligations assumed by Nigeria under international conventions related to
trafficking in persons.
With respect to responding to domestic issues, federal offences have also
substantially responded to emerging domestic criminal law issues, some of which
also have international dimensions. Bribery and corruption is a cardinal domestic
issue which the statutes have generally responded to. Another domestic issue which
the statutes examined have also responded to is the issue of money laundering, and
advanced fee fraud. The EFCC Act and other legislations have responded to the
issue of money laundering and advanced fee fraud.
Apart from bribery involving only private sector employees, another important gap
in federal offences is the absence of legislation dealing with cyber crimes.
Cybercrime is defined as crimes committed on the internet using the computer as
either a tool or a targeted victim (Joseph, 20062). While some of the property
offences like stealing, obtaining property by false pretences may be applied to
prosecute some cyber crimes, it is important to enact legislation to specifically deal
with all the issues relating to cyber crimes.
The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime provides a platform to model

1
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Division for Treaty Affairs, Legislative Guide for the
Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption available at
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/ corruption/CoC_LegislativeGuide.pdf p. 4 (accessed on 20 March 2013).
5
See generally AUCC, Arts 4, 5(1), 6, 8, and 11 and UNCAC, Chapter III.
2
http://www.crime-research.org/articles/joseph06/(accessed on 20 March 2013).
34
 JURIDICA

legislation on cybercrime.1
Developments in criminal laws in the Northern States in the period under review
have significantly responded to domestic criminal law issues. The introduction in
1960 of a PC for the Northern States reflected the predominant cultural and
religious sensibilities of the people of Northern Nigeria by criminalizing conducts
contrary to Islamic values as noted earlier in the paper. A further response to
accommodate cultural and religious sensibilities also occurred with the
introduction of Sharia Penal Codes. The introduction of the punishments of stoning
to death and amputation of hand and foot however, runs contrary to the right to
human dignity, prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment guaranteed
under the 1999 Constitution and article 7 of ICCPR.
Unlike what obtains in Northern States, developments in criminal laws in Southern
Nigeria cannot be said to have significantly responded to domestic issues. The CC
introduced into Southern Nigeria in 1916 has continued to apply in all Southern
States with the exception of Lagos State. The other Southern States need to reform
the CC to reflect modern realties as was done in the Lagos Criminal Law 2011.

7. Conclusion: Prospects for the Future

The paper examined developments in substantive criminal law in Nigeria since
1960. Federal legislative powers over offences have been proactively used to
respond to emerging local and international criminal law issues. States however,
have been slow to use their legislative powers to keep pace with evolution of
society and respond to contemporary realties that require statutory intervention.
The need for proactive legislative interventions in the creation of offences by States
cannot be overemphasized. Offences are generally local in nature and require the
intervention of states. The 1916 CC applicable in Southern States (except Lagos) is
in need of urgent reform to respond to contemporary realities.
The PC introduced to Northern Nigeria in 1960 is already fifty three years old and
should be reviewed. The recent introduction of Sharia Penal Codes in Northern
States also needs to be reviewed to ensure that punishments which violate the right
to the dignity of the human person guaranteed under section 34(1)(a) of the 1999
Constitution and the ICCPR are removed from the Codes. The freedom of States to

1
The Convention was opened for signature on 23 November, 2001 and entered into force on 1 July
2004.
35
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol 9, no. 1/2013

enact criminal laws that suits their cultural and religious persuasion is conceded.
State laws must however conform to fundamental human rights.
While the attempt to respond to contemporary forms of criminality at the domestic
and international levels at the federal level is commendable, existing gaps relating
to bribery involving only private sector officials and the need to introduce
cybercrime legislation should be filled. It is expected also that the issue of the
death penalty should be subjected to extensive consultations and dialogue before
legislative intervention, especially in view of the recent introduction of death
penalty for the offence of kidnapping.

8. References
Adeyemi, A. (1990). Death Penalty in Nigeria: Criminological Perspectives in Kalu & Osinbajo eds.
Narcotics: Law and Policy in Nigeria. Lagos, Federal Ministry of Justice, p. 284.
Adeyemi, A. (1991). Corruption in Nigeria: The Criminological Perspective in Kalu & Osinbajo
(eds), Perspectives on Corruption and Other Economic Crimes in Nigeria. (Lagos, Federal Ministry
of Justice, p.1.
Akinseye-George, Yemi (2000). Legal System, Corruption And Governance in Nigeria. Lagos, New
Century Law Publishers Ltd.
Nwabueze, Ben (1983). Federalism in Nigeria under The Presidential Constitution. London, Sweet &
Maxwell.
Ocheje, Paul. D. (2001). Law and Social Change: A Socio-Legal Analysis of Nigeria’s Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences. Journal of African Law 45(2) 173, pp. 177-191.
Oguche, Samuel (2012). Plea Bargaining in Nigeria: Constitutional Questions in Epiphany Azinge &
Laura Ani ed. Plea Bargain in Nigeria: Law and Practice. Lagos, Nigerian Institute of Advanced
Legal Studies, pp. 26-55
Ogungbe, M.O. (2007). Human Trafficking in the 21st Century and the Nigerian Jurisprudence in
Onibokun and Popoola, ed. Current Perspectives in Law, Justice and Development. Ile-Ife, Demm-
Ditt Projects, 362, p. 379.
Okonkwo, Cyprian (1990). Death Penalty: Myth or Reality in Kalu & Osinbajo eds. Narcotics: Law
and Policy in Nigeria. Lagos, Federal Ministry of Justice, pp. 262-268.
Okonkwo, Cyprian (ed), (1992). Okonkwo & Naish on Criminal Law in Nigeria, 2nd ed. Abuja,
Spectrum Books Limited.
Onukwugha, Anayo et al. “Anti Kidnapping Laws not Working in Five States” in Leadership
http://leadership.ng/nga/articles/7158/2011/ 10/24/anti-kidnapping_law_not_working_5_states.html
accessed on 10 March 2013.
Onwuemenyi, Oscarline EFCC Recovers U.S.$ 11 Billion, 459 Houses, 593 Vehicles/Oil Vessels,
Vanguard, 28 May 2011 http://allafrica.com/stories/201105302012.html (accessed on 27 September,
2011).

36
 JURIDICA

Osipitan, T. & Oyewo (1999). Legal and Institutional Framework for Combating Corruption in
Nigeria in E. Akanki (ed.), Unilag Readings in Law. Lagos, University of Lagos, 257.
Ostien, Philip (2007). Sharia Implementation in Northern Nigeria 1999-2006: A Sourcebook, Vol. III.
Lagos, Spectrum Books Limited.
Ostien, Philip (2007). Sharia Implementation in Northern Nigeria 1999-2006: A Sourcebook, Vol. V.
Lagos, Spectrum Books Limited.
Peters, Ruud “The Reintroduction of Sharia Criminal Law in Nigeria: New Challenges for the
Muslims of the North”
http://uva.academia.edu/RuudPeters/Papers/367800/_The_reintroduction_of_sharia_ criminal_
law_in_Nigeria_New_challenges_to_the_Muslims_of_the_North._in_S._Tellenbach_and_Th._Hanst
ein._Beitrage_zum_islamischen_Recht_IV._Frankfurt_a.M._Peter_Lang_2004_Leipziger_Beitrage_z
ur_Orientforschung_15_pp._9-23 accessed on 9 March 2013).
Richardson, Sam (1987). Notes on the Penal Code Law. Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University.
*** Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, s. 4(2), (3), (4), and (7).
*** The Conventions are the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 as amended by the 1972
Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic drugs, and the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances and the United Nation’s Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotics and Psychotropic
Substances. The international instruments have been ratified by Nigeria.
*** The Penal Code Law No. 18 of 1959.
***International Crisis Group Africa Report No. 168 (20 December 2010). Northern Nigeria:
Background to Conflict, 20, p. 17.

37