The Federal High Court sitting in Enugu has ruled that Nigeria’s mandatory death penalty laws remove judicial discretion in capital cases, effectively forcing judges to impose death sentences without the ability to consider alternative punishments.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, April 30, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/EN/CS/212/2024, Justice Mabel T. Segun-Bello held that while mandatory sentencing provisions significantly constrain judicial decision-making, the court does not have the power to compel the National Assembly to amend existing laws.
According to the court, it is the responsibility of the executive and legislative arms of government to reform the legal framework so that judges can exercise discretion in sentencing. The judge stressed that until such reforms are made, “the hands of the courts in Nigeria will remain tied.
The case was filed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ikeazor Akariwe, alongside a death row inmate, Bassey Samuel, who is currently detained at the Okere Correctional Centre in Delta State after being convicted of armed robbery. Samuel maintains his innocence and his case was presented as a representation of broader systemic concerns within Nigeria’s criminal justice system.
The respondents included the Federal Government, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and leaders of the National Assembly, all of whom opposed the application. They argued that the death penalty is constitutionally valid and that courts are bound by statutes that prescribe mandatory sentences.
Justice Segun-Bello noted that Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution permits deprivation of life in execution of a court sentence, thereby confirming the legality of capital punishment in Nigeria. The court also relied on Supreme Court precedents which affirm that where the law prescribes a mandatory sentence, judges have no discretion once guilt is established.
The judgment highlighted conflicting legal philosophies presented in the case—judicial activism, which supports flexible interpretation of law in the interest of justice, and legal positivism, which requires strict adherence to enacted statutes.
The court also examined comparative international practices, noting that several jurisdictions, including South Africa, the United States, India, and European states, have either abolished mandatory death sentences or significantly limited their application through judicial discretion and mitigating considerations.
Despite recognizing a global shift away from rigid capital punishment frameworks, the court emphasized that Nigerian lower courts remain bound by Supreme Court decisions upholding mandatory sentencing laws under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Justice Segun-Bello ultimately held that while mandatory death penalty provisions do indeed remove judicial discretion, the court cannot order legislative amendment of the law. Reliefs seeking such directives were therefore refused.
However, the court called on lawmakers to urgently review Nigeria’s sentencing framework, urging them to “unfetter the hands of the courts” and allow judges discretion in appropriate cases.
The judgment noted that unless legislative reform is undertaken or the Supreme Court revisits its position, Nigerian courts will continue to operate under a system where sentencing discretion in capital cases is effectively eliminated.
In this article