Project Abstract

Abstract
The immunity clause under the Nigerian 1999 Constitution has been a subject of significant debate and controversy. This provision grants immunity from civil and criminal prosecution to the President, Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors during their time in office. The rationale behind this immunity is to ensure that these top government officials are able to carry out their duties without fear of harassment or distraction from legal actions. However, the immunity clause has been criticized for fostering a culture of impunity and shielding public office holders from being held accountable for their actions. This has led to concerns about corruption, abuse of power, and a lack of transparency in governance. Critics argue that the immunity clause is often misused by officials to engage in corrupt practices, knowing that they are protected from legal consequences while in office. On the other hand, proponents of the immunity clause argue that it is necessary to protect sitting government officials from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits that could hinder their ability to govern effectively. They believe that without immunity, public office holders would be vulnerable to constant legal challenges that could undermine the stability and functionality of the government. In practice, the immunity clause has been a contentious issue in Nigeria, with several high-profile cases highlighting its implications for governance and accountability. The question of whether the immunity clause should be retained, modified, or abolished altogether continues to be a topic of debate among legal experts, politicians, and civil society organizations. This research project aims to critically analyze the immunity clause under the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, examining its historical context, legal implications, and practical effects on governance and accountability. By reviewing relevant case law, legislative debates, and scholarly articles, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the immunity clause and its impact on the Nigerian political landscape. Through a thorough examination of the arguments for and against the immunity clause, this research project intends to contribute to the ongoing discourse on constitutional reform and good governance in Nigeria. By shedding light on the complexities and controversies surrounding this provision, it aims to inform public debate and policy decisions regarding the immunity of top government officials in the country.

Project Overview

1.0.0: INTRODUCTION

Immunity clause under the Nigerian Constitution being a curse or a blessing is not only a current topic but equally controversial and intriguing. After several years of military rule, Nigeria has returned to a democratic rule since 29 May, 1999. However, the experience so far since Nigeria has returned to democratic rule shows that all has not been well with our democratic experience, especially as it affects the immunity of chief executives from judicial proceedings. Of interest to this writer was the statement made by General Muhammed Buhari (Rtd.) former Nigeria military Head of State and the Presidential candidate of a political party1 during the 2011 elections on March 1st 2011,he said:

We will amend the Constitution to remove immunity from prosecution for elected officers in criminal cases2.

Preliminary, the first question that comes to our mind is what is immunity in this context? According to Bola Ajibola (SAN)3,the answer to this question is simple; ‘it is nothing but another word for exemption’. It is this immunity that is enshrined in the NigerianConstitution. Hence, wehave the immunity clause under section 308 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.The section has provided for the immunity of President,Vice President,Governors and their deputies. Thus, since the Constitution was passed into law, it becomes our Fons et Origo and so with the immunity clause in it.
It is believed that the Constitution must at all time cardinally be our shield and sword, it must at all time protect all the citizen of this nationwide;female,male,young or old,fair play,human rights,as well as sustaining the rule of law. When in our national anthem we say ‘the nation bound in freedom peace and unity’,the only juristic guarantee for that is our Constitution4. Akin to this is the concept of rule of law which establishes that all men are equal before the law. This postulation became a doctrine well established by Dicey5 via; the Supremacy of the rule of law of the land and equality before the law. In summary, no man should be placed above the law, rather every man whatever his or her position in life in the country is subject to the ordinary law of the land in the country.
It is against this backdrop that this writer find it pertinent to check whether the immunity clause which has passed the test of supremacy having being enshrined in the Constitution, has also passed the test of equality before the law,that is,does the immunity clause not make some people ‘untouchable rabbits’? Here in this work, after examining the nomenclature of the immunity clause,we will see whether it is hindering the development of this country(a curse)or if it is advancing the course of the country (a blessing). Recommendation will now be made on the exercise of the doctrine in order to fine tune it to the demands of democratic governance in Nigeria.