Thesis Abstract

Abstract
The immunity clause under the Nigerian 1999 Constitution is a provision that shields certain public officials, particularly the President, Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors, from civil and criminal prosecution while in office. This clause is enshrined in Section 308 of the Constitution and aims to protect these officials from frivolous or politically motivated lawsuits that could disrupt governance and distract them from their duties. The rationale behind the immunity clause is to ensure that elected officials can carry out their responsibilities without fear of harassment or intimidation through legal actions. However, the broad scope of immunity has raised concerns about accountability and transparency in governance. Critics argue that the immunity clause can be exploited to shield officials from accountability for corrupt practices or human rights abuses. Over the years, the interpretation and application of the immunity clause have been subject to judicial scrutiny and public debate. Courts have clarified that the immunity does not cover acts done outside the scope of official duties or before assuming office. This limitation is crucial in preventing public officials from using their positions to evade criminal liability for personal misconduct or crimes committed prior to their election. Despite the intended protection, the immunity clause has been a source of controversy and calls for reform. Some argue that the blanket immunity provided to certain officials hinders the fight against corruption and undermines the principle of equality before the law. Efforts to amend the Constitution to limit the scope of immunity have been met with mixed reactions, reflecting the complex interplay between the need for official protection and the demand for accountability. In practice, the immunity clause has been tested in various high-profile cases involving allegations of corruption, abuse of power, and other misconduct against public officials. The outcomes of these cases have underscored the importance of striking a balance between immunity and accountability to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust in government institutions. As Nigeria continues its democratic journey, the debate over the immunity clause remains relevant to the country's governance framework. Balancing the need for official protection with the imperative of holding leaders accountable is a fundamental challenge that requires careful consideration and dialogue among stakeholders to ensure that the rule of law and good governance are upheld.

Thesis 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.