The immunity clause, as enshrined in Section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution, has been a subject of intense debate among legal scholars, politicians, and the general public. This provision grants immunity to certain public officials, including the President, Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors, protecting them from both civil and criminal proceedings while in office.
The immunity clause was initially intended to protect public officials from frivolous lawsuits and allow them to focus on governance without unnecessary distractions. However, over time, this provision has been criticized for creating a culture of impunity, where public officials feel they are above the law and can engage in corrupt practices with little fear of accountability.
Some Nigerians have called to repeal the immunity clause, with many arguing that it has outlived its purpose and is now being used to shield public officials from accountability.
The Nigerian House of Representatives moved by passing a bill that seeks to remove immunity from the Vice President, Governors, and their Deputies, leaving only the President with this privilege. This proposed legislation, sponsored by Solomon Bob, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmaker from Rivers State, aims to promote accountability in public office.
The bill, which has passed its second reading, seeks to amend Section 308 of the Constitution, which currently grants absolute immunity to the President, Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors while in office. This means that these officials cannot be sued or prosecuted for any civil or criminal offense during their tenure.
However, in a surprising turn of events, the House of Representatives reversed its decision to move forward with the bill, and it will now undergo further debate before any progress is made. This reversal has raised questions about the commitment to promoting accountability and transparency in governance.
The issue of immunity for high-ranking officials has been a contentious one, with proponents arguing that it is necessary to protect them from frivolous lawsuits and allow them to focus on governance. However, opponents argue that it creates a culture of impunity and allows officials to act with disregard for the law.
Meanwhile, not everyone is convinced that removing the immunity clause is the right step.
According to Emma Jimo, a public affairs analyst, “Immunity clause exists in the constitution to prevent frivolous litigations against president and governors, thus protecting them and helping them concentrate on governance. Over time, it has been abused by beneficiaries, such that they get away with maladministration and corrupt practices.”
Jimo acknowledges that repealing the immunity clause is a positive step but cautions that it does not guarantee good conduct or justice for the people. He also notes that the timing is not right, as the reversal may not yield the desired positive results.
“The point is for government officials without immunity, there is scarce prosecution. The effect is political vendetta increases, the beneficiaries of immunity clause are distracted, governance ceases, or it wanes, and the people are the worst losers for this.”
The debate surrounding the immunity clause is complex and multifaceted. While some argue that it is necessary to protect public officials from frivolous lawsuits, others believe that it has created a culture of impunity and should be repealed. As the conversation continues, one thing is clear: the fate of the immunity clause will have significant implications for governance and accountability in Nigeria.
