The House of Representatives came under fire on Thursday for reversing its earlier decision on the removal of immunity for the vice president, governors and deputy governors.

Civil Society Organisations, including the Centre for Accountability and Open Leadership and the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, in separate interviews with The TheNigerian, faulted the House’s decision.

Two bills on executive immunity removal and death sentence passed a second reading on Wednesday, with Nigerians expecting the parliament to subject them to a public hearing to garner stakeholders’ input ahead of the third and final reading.

The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the plenary session in the absence of the Speaker, Tajudeen Abbas, said the volte face on the bills was to enable the House to conduct a more robust debate by the lawmakers.

Kalu explained that the bills would be subjected to debate, considering their sensitivity.

“We want to apologise to the sponsors of the bills, but this action is to enable the House to have a further debate considering the importance of the subject matters,” Kalu said.

However, the Chairman of the Centre for Accountability and Open Leadership, Debo Adeniran, said the proposal of the bill was bound to fail because it mentioned only the removal of the immunity clause for the vice president and the deputy governors.

“For so long, we have campaigned that nobody in Nigeria should be treated as being higher than the other and be given that immunity clause. That one could commit heinous crimes and would not be tried by a court of law. Whether criminal or civil, everybody should be subjected to the dictates of our laws and the intervention of the judiciary.

“But then, we thought that they would let it scale through. But since they disaggregated the principal and their deputy, we knew that something sinister had been happening. As soon as they said that it’s only the vice president and deputy governors that would lose their immunity, as soon as they mentioned it, I knew that it would fail.

“Because the constitution provides that they contested elections on joint tickets, the tickets are not separate, whatever happens to the principal happens to his deputy. So, if they want to remove it, they should remove it wholesale. And if they want to remove it for civil offences, they should retain it for criminal offences,” he said.

He added that public officials should be made to face the law, after losing their immunity, in order to ensure a similitude of equality before the law.

“So basically, we can keep on managing. But what we should not do is to allow them to go scot-free as soon as they lose immunity. Whether or not they were caught committing criminal acts while they were in office, they should be subjected to re-examination after they get out of office. I mean the President, Vice President, Governors and their Deputies. So that at the end of the day, all animals will be seen to be equal, and none should be treated as being more equal than others,” Adeniran further stated.

On his part, the Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Ibrahim Musa Rafsanjani, lamented that the provision of immunity for the president, governors and vice president made for “reckless governance in the country and lack of accountability by elected officials.’’

Noting that immunity is only an additional protection for people in power to abuse their office, the activist observed that such executive protection does not happen anywhere else except in Nigeria and a few other corrupt countries.

He noted, “First and foremost, immunity within the context of reckless governance in Nigeria is dangerous for our democracy and accountability. This means that a President, Vice President, Governor, a Deputy Governor, can loot and kill and do anything they want within the period that he or she is in power, usually four years or eight years, and nothing is going to happen to such kind of person.

“So, immunity is only an additional protection for people in power to abuse the power, and nothing happens to them.‘’

“In other places, there’s no reason that you are in a position of power that you break the law, that you steal, you loot, you kill and then you will get covered. There is nowhere that kind of thing will happen, only in Nigeria and some few places where there is much impunity.

“As far as I’m concerned, immunity is not something we should be proud of. If you are a President, and you know you have not done anything wrong, there is every provision for seeking redress or protection of your rights as a citizen, same as the VP, the governors or their deputies,” he said.

Meanwhile, a lawmaker and member of the People’s Democratic Party who spoke with The TheNigerian in confidence said the bill would not succeed.

He said, “I have nothing much to say on the immunity removal clause because the President will not sign it into law. It looks good on paper but in fairness to the sponsor, I will say this is dead on arrival.

“Our elected people love power. The President want to enjoy immunity from prosecution, and the Vice President, 36 State Governors and their deputies are not exempted. It is possible that the powers that be want the bill to die on the floor, but let’s see how the debate will go.”

On the death penalty, he had this to say, “There is a global campaign to expunge the death penalty from the laws governing a democratic society. I think members lobbied to have this bill returned for debate to enable them to speak to the issues involved. This is just my personal opinion.”

Similarly, the House, through its spokesman, Akin Rotimi, gave reasons for the new twist on the bills.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Mr Rotimi said, “During plenary on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, the House passed 42 constitution amendment bills for second reading, including, a bill to amend the constitution to qualify the immunity of the President and remove the immunity of the Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors, sponsored by Solomon Bob.

“This bill aims to curb corruption, eradicate impunity, and enhance accountability in public office.

The second one was “A bill to amend the constitution to review penalties for certain capital offences in line with international best practices, sponsored by Benjamin Kalu and six others.

“These bills, along with 40 others, were passed for second reading without debate, in accordance with the provisions of the House Standing Orders (11h edition), and were referred to the House Committee on Constitution Review.

“However, during the plenary on Thursday, March 27, 2025, the House resolved to rescind the passage of these two bills and relist them for a second reading to allow for a more extensive and robust debate on their general principles.

“This decision, reaffirmed by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the session, underscores the House’s commitment to diligent and transparent lawmaking, particularly on sensitive legislative matters.”

According to the statement, “At the first and second reading stages, the content of any bill reflects solely the views of its sponsor(s) and not the position of the House or its leadership. The House formally engages with a bill only after it progresses to the committee stage, where public hearings are conducted.”

He added that the bills have not been discarded or removed from consideration, stressing that “They remain part of the legislative process and will be revisited at a later date. The decision to rescind their passage for the second reading is in line with the House Standing Orders (Eleventh edition) and is intended solely to allow for thorough debate before further legislative action.”

Twenty-four hours after passing for second reading two bills to review the death penalty law and removal of immunity for the Offices of the Vice President, governors, and deputy governors, the House of Representatives has rescinded decisions on the proposed legislation.

The resolution of the House was disclosed at a plenary session on Thursday by the House Leader, Prof Julius Ihonvbere.

Recall that both bills passed through a second reading stage on Wednesday as part of the 42 proposed legislations considered during plenary.

The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the plenary session in the absence of the Speaker, Tajudeen Abbas, said the decision on the bills is to enable the House to conduct a more robust debate by the lawmakers.

“We want to apologise to the sponsors of the bills, but this action is to enable the House to have a further debate considering the importance of the subject matters,” Kalu said.

… Details later

Dirisu Yakubu

Dirisu, has over 12 years experience covering political parties, National Assembly, sports, transportation, etc, and currently works with The TheNigerian

All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from TheNigerian.

Contact: [email protected]

State governments have voiced strong opposition to a bill in the House of Representatives seeking to remove the constitutional immunity shielding governors, deputy governors, and the vice president from prosecution for crimes.

The bill, which has passed its second reading, aims to amend Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, retaining immunity for the President, while stripping it from other top executive officeholders.

On Wednesday at plenary, the House presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, passed the bill through a second reading.

The passage paved the way for its transmission to the House Committee on Constitutional Review for further legislative action.

The proponents of the bill, including its sponsor, Solomon Bob, argued that removing immunity would strengthen the fight against corruption and enhance accountability.

However, state officials and legal experts warned that such a move could lead to politically motivated lawsuits, distractions from governance, and instability in state administrations.

The immunity clause enshrined in Section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution protects the President, governors, and their deputies from legal proceedings while in office.

The provision has been in place to prevent distractions and ensure that elected leaders focus on governance without the threat of litigation.

However, the proposed amendment seeks to retain immunity only for the president, while allowing vice presidents, governors, and deputy governors to face prosecution for alleged misconduct while still in office.

Oyo State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, Abiodun Aikomo, said scrapping of immunity by the National Assembly would affect developmental projects across the states.

In an interview with The TheNigerian in Ibadan, the state capital, Aikomo explained that scrapping immunity would distract the executive arm of government from its functions.

He said, “The concern was that if these officials were held criminally responsible for actions taken while in office, they would be distracted from performing their duties.

“That’s why the constitution has given them immunity from prosecution.”

He added, “In law-making, even when you go to court and the court is going to interpret the provision of any law, it looks at what is the mischief in society which the law was introduced to cure.

“So, if someone is in an executive office, instead of distracting that person from doing his work by taking him to court and prosecuting him, the law will say just concentrate on what you are doing, in four or eight years, the work will be over, and you can be asked to come and account for your deal.

“Laying that foundation, I honestly do not think immunity should be scrapped.”

His Ogun State counterpart, Mr Oluwasina Ogungbade (SAN), said the move by the House of Representatives would not enhance the fight against corrupt public officials.

Ogungbade said that if perchance the House succeeded in pulling through with the bill, it would only encourage “a rash of politically motivated allegations of corruption and wrongdoings.”

He said, “I also hope that the removal of immunity for only those proposed will not lead to a rash of politically motivated allegations of corruption and wrongdoings, to achieve unjust and illegal removal from office of elected officials.”

The justice commissioner said he had read the report and wondered why the bill chose to spare the president but went after the governors and their deputies.

He said if the immunity clause would be removed at all, it should apply to the president too.

“I have also read reports about the proposed amendment. My first reaction is to question why the removal is proposed to be limited only to those mentioned. Why is the president not included?

“If immunity is to be removed, then it has to apply to all elected officials without exception.

“However, I have doubts that the proposed removal will have any meaningful impact on the fight against corruption,” he said.

The Ogun AG was, however, quick to add that it was the complete revamp of the criminal justice system, including the investigative techniques and procedures of the major crime agencies, that could help to give the corruption fight a bite and not the removal of the immunity clause.

“I am aware that at the moment, persons who once occupied those offices and have been out of office for years are either still under investigation or prosecution.

“Why is this so? The point is that the immunity clause is really not the problem.

“If we cannot investigate and prosecute people when they are out of office, what assurance is there that we will be able to do so while they are still in office, enjoying all the powers and influence that come with that office?

“My take is that we must simply have a complete revamp of the criminal justice system, including the investigative techniques and procedures of the major crime agencies,” he added.

Defending the bill, Bob, representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency of Rivers State, in an exclusive interview with The TheNigerian in December 2024, said the removal of the immunity clause for the concerned public officeholders would breed a less corrupt society.

“With this bill, we want to see a less corrupt society, a less lawless, reckless society and a less undisciplined place.

“We must do away with this notion that we can go after these people when they leave office. What the hell is that?

“If people know that they can be pursued while in office, they’ll be more careful with their actions.

“It is counterintuitive to think that we have to wait until they finish their terms to take action against them,” he said.

Bob also argued that “If the vice president becomes president, even in an acting capacity, he can be entitled to the same immunity that the president has.

“But as vice president, he doesn’t need it. Governors don’t need it. The deputy governors do not need it because, in the first place, how do you give immunity to people who don’t need it?

“The things we permit in this country are not necessary at all. We need to think through these things, analyse them and tell ourselves the truth.”

In the proposed amendment, a new subsection 3 is inserted into Section 308.

“(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.

“(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature.”

In the explanatory memorandum, the bill seeks to alter the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to remove the immunity conferred on the vice president (except when acting as president), state governors and their deputies, and to qualify the immunity conferred on the president.