Select Page

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED
TO THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE MANAGEMENT COURSE, INSTITUTE
FOR SECURITY STUDIES, ABUJA ON 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011

I
consider it a great honour once again to be invited to this year’s Executive
Intelligence Management Course of this great Institute to deliver a paper on
the topic “The Challenges of the Immunity
Clause in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999”2
I recall that I was here last year
to address you during a similar Course.  Once
again, I thank you for this invitation.

The subject of Constitutional
Immunity will continue to attract public discourse as long as the style of profligacy
and licentiousness of leadership, audacious demonstration of affluence by the
few but highly powerful and demonstrable impunity in the conduct and handling
of public fund continue in our society.

These are issues of
accountability, responsibility and transparency in governance and they
constitute serious concern to the governed. 
The desire therefore to bring erring leaders to judgment in the exercise
of the sovereign authority of the people and the limit of such authority if any
will continue to make discussion on the subject of immunity relevant in
Nigeria.

I belief that every
position of authority is to serve the people and honestly too. It is not to
serve one’s self or ones family. 
Regrettably, experience has shown that some of our leaders seek
leadership to wield authority. Authority to amass wealth and accumulate
material possession.  Indeed, it has been
said that in Nigeria, some stash money in the names of their cronies and family
members with scandalous and reckless abandon.  
All these lead to wastage of public resources and high degree of
corruption.

Therefore, subjecting
leadership to control and judicial sanction without offending the Constitution,
requires a good understanding of the provisions of the immunity clause in the
constitution.  But let me ask, how many
people are covered by this provision? 
And what is the percentage of this people compared to several other
leaders occupying one position of authority or the other, who also constantly
abuse and misuse their powers and authority?

THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY

Section 308(1) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 hereinafter referred to as
“the Constitution” which guarantees
the listed public officers immunity from criminal prosecutions subject to the
provisions of section 308(2) provides as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
this Constitution but subject to sub-section two (2) of this section

a.     
No civil or criminal
proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this
section applies during his period of office;

b.     
A person to whom this
section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either
in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and

c.     
No process of any
court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person whom this section applies
shall be applied or issued, provided that in ascertaining whether any period of
limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to
whom this section applies, no account shall be taken of his period of office”.

This sweeping
provision grants general cover for the listed members of the Executive to get
away with virtually everything to the extent that they are free from criminal
prosecution during the pendency of their tenure no matter what offence is committed
by them.  However, it must be noted that
immunity 

“does not apply to civil proceedings against
a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or
criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party”.3

Subsection (3) listed
the persons to whom the section is applicable. 
In the very words of the section. 

“This section applies to a person holding the
office of President or Vice President, Governor or Deputy
Governor
and the reference in this section to period of office is a
reference period during which the person holding such office is required to
perform the functions of the office”.4

The Advanced Learners
Dictionary of English Language defines immunity in the context it was used in
the Constitution to mean:

“The state of being protected from something,
protection against particular laws that is given to politicians”
5

The Authoritative
Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition, also define the word to mean:

“Any exception from a duty, liability or
service of process especially such as exception granted to a public official”
6

It also defines
Constitutional immunity to mean:

“Immunity granted by
the Constitution”
7

Simply stated,
immunity means protection from liability. 
In other words, if the public official concerned commits even murder
which is absolutely prohibited by our criminal law,8 or offences of obtaining money under false pretences
contrary to Section 419 of the Criminal Code9 the Constitution says you cannot arrest or
detain not to talk of prosecuting or sentencing simply because the person
involved happens to be the President, Vice President, Governor or the Deputy
Governor. 

This is
notwithstanding the wave of seeming Executive lawlessness in the polity and the
parasitic ruling class who more often, are not able to separate or distinguish between
public fund and their personal money. 
For me, providing constitutional protection against this situation
amounts to subversion of the rule of law, democracy and political stability
which must not be allowed to persist. But how did it all begin?

The Doctrine of
sovereign immunity has its origin in the anachronistic vestige; expressed in
the latin maxim Rex non protest
peccare
(The king can do no wrong). As the King enjoyed absolute
immunity, he could neither be impleaded in his own courts nor subject to any
foreign jurisdiction.  According to King
Maneleus of Sparta

“When a king takes spoils, he robs no one,
when a king kills, he commits no murder, he only fulfils justice”
10

I think the Yoruba
Native Law and Custom has something similar to this. This can be deduced from
the very title of ‘KABIYESI’ answered
by our Royal Fathers.  Jurisprudentially,
Kabiyesi literarily means “who can ask him questions? Nobody.”  But inspite of this referred position of the
Royal Fathers, the Yoruba Native Law and Custom still have very strong,
irresistible and generally accepted system of bringing an erring Oba to
justice.  

By virtue of the Crown
Proceedings Act 1947,
which came into force on 1st
January, 1948, the position has changed. 
Effective from that date, the Crown can be sued in England for the tort
of its servants.  This was a radical
change from the pre 1947 position of total immunity enjoyed by the Crown11   The 1947 Act does not apply in Nigeria
by virtue of the Act being a post 1900 legislation and therefore not qualified
as a statute of general application.   
    

The Crown
Proceedings Act of 1947
made the government generally liable with
limited exceptions in tort and contract. Even before this enactment, it was
possible to claim against the Crown with the Attorney General’s Fiat.  Please note however that law suits against
the Sovereign in UK in his or her personal and private capacity remain
inadmissible under the British law.12

In the United States
of America, the Federal Government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued
unless it has waived its immunity or consented to the suit. The Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution states that

The Judicial powers of the United States
shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or by
Citizens or subjects of any foreign State”  
 

The Supreme Court of
United States has held that this Amendment re-affirms that States possess
sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in
Federal Courts without their consent.     

 In Australia, there is no automatic crown
immunity, although the crown may be explicitly or implicitly immune from any
particular statute.

In my opinion, the
principles of state sovereignty and Crown Immunity are distinguishable from the
Executive Immunity granted by the Constitution, because, even though these
officers represent the Executive authority of the State, they do not constitute
the Sovereignty of the State. 

THE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE

In Olabisi
Onabanjo V. Concord Press of Nigeria
,13 the Plaintiff who
was the Governor of Ogun State had filed a libel suit against the Concord Press
of Nigeria and promptly, the Defendant challenged the competence of the suit on
the ground that the Plaintiff was immune from being sued under section 308 of
the Constitution and therefore cannot sue. This objection was dismissed when
the Court held that although the Governor could not be sued, he was not
precluded from instituting and maintaining an action in Court. 

The same decision was
reached, in the case of His Excellency,
Apa
Aku V. Plateau Publishing Ltd. & Ors,14
another libel
suit instituted by another serving Governor. The Jurisdiction of the Court was
also challenged on the basis inter alia of section 267 of the Constitution of
Nigeria 1979 (similar to section 308 of 1999 Constitution). The defendant had
argued that since processes cannot be issued requiring or compelling the
Plaintiff to appear before the Court that the Court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff in the suit. That, even, in proceedings
commenced by the Governor, no process of any Court requiring or compelling his
appearance can be issued. The Governor, he further argued, cannot waive the
immunity conferred on him on the ground of public policy.  That he cannot be subject to the process of
Court in his private capacity. Sound argument you will say.

But this is what the
respected Hon. Judge said and I quote:

“In my view the provisions of section 267 of
the Constitution quoted in full above are very clear and unambiguous. It means
as long as the Plaintiff, that is, His Excellency, Apa Aku remains in the
office of the Governor no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or
continued against him.  He shall not be
arrested or imprisoned during that period, either in pursuance
of the process of any court or otherwise.  Likewise and in the same circumstance, no
process of any court requiring or compelling his appearance shall be applied
for or issued.  In effect the section
gave the Plaintiff immunity while in office as Governor and not disability in
legal proceedings while in office as Governor”
15

Consequently, His
Lordship dismissed the objection because according to him, the Constitution
does not deprive the Plaintiff the right to sue.  One wonders what then is the status of the
legal right of equality of all persons before the law?  If you as a President, Vice President,
Governor or a Deputy Governor can sue me but I cannot sue you for remedy over an
injury done by you to me just because you are in office, that to me does not
appear to be fair or just.  

The decision in Apa
Aku V. Plateau Publishing
(Supra) was confirmed by the Court of
Appeal in the case of Chief DSP Alamieyeseigha V. Teiwa & ors16.  The Respondents in this case had secured an
order to compel the Chief of Air Staff to investigate some alleged criminal
acts purportedly committed by the Appellant while he was a serving officer in
the Nigerian Air Force.

The Appellant Governor
Alamieyeseigha was not made a party to the suit because he was at the time of
the suit, the Governor of Bayelsa State. 
Thereupon, the Appellant sought and obtained the leave of the Court of
Appeal to appeal against the Order as an interested party. The Respondents
objected relying on the provisions of section 308 of the Constitution.  In dismissing the objection, the Court of
Appeal held as follows:

“The failure of Respondents to put on notice
the Appellant who would be directly affected by the order to be made under the
application for mandamus is not only void for breach of section 36 of the
Constitution, Order 46 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1999, it is also void for breach of the immunity granted to the
Appellant from process or proceedings civil or criminal by section 308 of the
Constitution. 

The immunity granted is not intended to
subject a person to whom section 308 applies to a civil disability in respect
of any of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  At least, it is not intended that it shall
deprive a person concerned the right to fair hearing in the determination of
his civil rights or obligations – as would be the case if the attempt by the
Respondents were to be successful. 

Section 308 of the Constitution is not to be
read in isolation it should be read alongside other provisions of the
Constitution in such a way as to give effect and validity to the other rights conferred
by the Constitution”.17

It has also been
contended that since the affected Executives cannot be sued or charged to court
during their term of office, cases that arose before their assumption of office
cannot be continued against them while in office and therefore has to be stayed
to await the expiration of their tenure. 
See the cases of Cornel Oluwole Rotimi Vs. Mcgregor18; Bola Tinubu Vs. IMB Securities Ltd.19 and
Media Technic Nigeria Ltd. Vs. Lam Adesina
20

Talking about the
scope of the cover provided by Section 308 of the Constitution, Hon. Justice
Oduyemi JCA had this to say in Alamieyeseigha’s case (Supra)

“What section 308 provides in favour of the
persons enumerated in subsection(3) thereof so long as each of them holds the
office stipulated is an immunity from civil or criminal proceedings instituted
or continued  against him; immunity from
arrest or imprisonment during that period either in pursuance of the process of
any court or otherwise or the application for or issue of the process of any
court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom the section
applies.  It is settled law that any
breach the provisions of section 308 of the Constitution renders such process
or proceedings civil or criminal, null, void and of no effect.”21 

It therefore follows
that the officers listed in the said section cannot be served with any court
process. No court can lawfully exercise any jurisdiction on him.  If any court does, the exercise of that
jurisdiction shall be a nullity.
  

The above cited cases
are civil in nature.  Not much have been
seen or recorded on the interpretation and scope of the concept in criminal
cases.  Not until 2002, the Executive
Immunity clause was perceived as almighty, unquestionable and absolute.  That the President, Vice President, Governors
and Deputy Governors cannot even be investigated talk less of being prosecuted
while in office was the popular perception.  That position was decisively changed in 2002
when our court put their feet down and insisted that the listed officers may
not be prosecuted in view of the clause, but, they can most certainly be
investigated for any criminal offence they allegedly commit while in
office.  This was the case of FAWEHINMI VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLIC
& 2 ORS.
22

As men and women
saddled with specialized responsibilities and functions of security, intelligence
and investigations, this ground breaking case will be of particular interest
regarding the scope and interpretation of the subject under discussion.  The facts of the case are briefly as follows:  

The Plaintiff, Chief
Gani Fawehinmi SAN had petitioned the Inspector General of Police alleging the
commission of a crime against the person of the Governor of Lagos State.  The petitioner invited the Inspector General
of Police to investigate the allegation contained in his petition pursuant to
its powers under section 4 of the Police Act. 
The IGP in his wisdom or otherwise replied to the petition citing
section 308(1) of the Constitution as preventing him or the police from
carrying out an investigation against the sitting Governor. 

Not satisfied with
this reply, the petitioner went to court claiming declarations and order of
mandamus compelling the Respondents by themselves, their agents, servants and
privies to investigate the complaints submitted by the Applicant.  The Federal High Court, in a considered
opinion, held that the allegation of crime against the Governor could not be
investigated by the Police by virtue of section 308(1) of the Constitution
which granted immunity from criminal investigation against the President, the
Vice President, the Governor and the Deputy Governor. 

But
quare!, from the wordings of section 308 of the Constitution, does the
Constitution really prevent the investigation of allegation of crime? No, it
does not. We shall see this very shortly. 

Chief
Gani Fawehinmi SAN, the indefatigable anti-corruption crusader will not have no
for an answer. This he demonstrated by promptly appealing against the judgment
to the Court of Appeal contending that;

i         “The learned 
trial judge erred in law in holding that the Respondents are
Constitutionally barred by section 308 of the Constitution from investigating
allegations of crime made by the Appellant against the Governor.

ii       That the learned trial judge erred in law
when he held that investigation by the Nigerian Police Force into criminal
allegations against a governor amounts to legal proceedings. iii That the
learned trial judge erred in law when he held that section 308 of the
Constitution confers immunity on the Governor of a state against investigation
into criminal allegations against him.” 

The
Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the lower court and held pointedly
that under section (4) of the Police Act, the Police has the duty to detect crime.
Implicit in that duty is the duty to investigate complaints on the commission
of crimes. Furthermore, the court
held that section 308 of the Constitution does not help or protect the persons
covered under the section from Police investigation.  That the use of the word “proceedings” after civil or criminal” in section 308 (1) of the
1999 Constitution makes it clear that what the draftsmen had in mind was
proceedings in court. 

The
Court of Appeal rejected the interpretation of the lower court that legal
investigation of any matter more often than not usually leads to legal
proceedings.  Their Lordships stated that
the meaning ascribed to the said provision (by the lower court) is too extensive
and wide.  In his contribution Aderemi
JCA (as he then was) at page 528 of the report stated and I quote. 

Under the provision of section four (4) of
the Police Act, the Police has inter alia, the duty to detect crime.  In the performance of that all important
duty, the police in trying to discover whether or by whom, an offence has been
committed, he is entitled to question any person (emphasis mine) whether
suspected or not from whom he thinks that useful information may be
obtained.  That very act of the police is
called investigation”
23

 The learned justice rejected the
interpretation of the lower court that such an investigation will offend the
provisions of section 308(1) because the investigation will lead to the arrest
of the Governor and his eventual prosecution.

It is to
be noted, borrowing the opinion of the Court of Appeal on this point, that when
section 4 enjoins the Police to investigate, it only demands from the police
the verification of the allegation preferred. 
In other words, to inquire into the authenticity of the allegation where
the allegation is found by the police to be well made and a prima facie case
has been made from the process of the investigation, there will be a resort to
the court of law for criminal prosecution or proceedings.  The preferment of a former charge in the
court of law is the beginning of criminal proceedings and is an offshoot of a
criminal investigation carried out by the police. 

Happily,
the decision of the Court of Appeal was confirmed by the Supreme Court (the
highest court of the land) in unmistakable terms. The Supreme Court has held
that any of the office holders mentioned in section 308 of the 1999
Constitution can be investigated by the police for any allegation of crime or
offence alleged against him. The immunity conferred by section 308 does not
confer on any of them immunity from Police investigation.  See generally Fawehinmi Vs. IGP.24  

This is
the state of the law in Nigeria today.  I
submit with authoritative firmness that nothing stops the law enforcement
agents acting under section 4 of the Police Act Cap P19 LFN 2004 which
donates the duty to prevent and detect crime, preserve law and order and
protect life and property from going after anybody including those covered by
the Executive Immunity.  In the same
vein, the Police, on the strength of this same law can investigate any
allegation of crime of corruption or any other crime whatsoever leveled against
the President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor. 

For me,
criminal prosecution or criminal proceedings in the language of the Constitution
is only one of the consequences of criminal investigation. If section 308
forbids criminal prosecution as it is presently constituted, prosecution is not
the only consequence of a successful Criminal investigation. The outcome of
such criminal investigation, I suggest, can be kept in safe till the public
officer is out of office. Better still, the outcome of such criminal
investigation can be laid by the investigating agency before the parliament,
that is, the National Assembly with respect to the President and the Vice
President or the House of Assembly with respect to the Governors and Deputy Governors,
to provoke the activation of impeachment process under sections 143 and 188 of the Constitution respectively. The
failure of politicians in any of the Houses to take this step can be checkmated
by the peoples power through protest or other forms of civil disobedience to
force the parliament to do the needful. 

I am
fortified in this position by the pronouncement of my law lord Hon.
Justice Uwaifo JSC
in his contribution to the judgment in Gani
Fawehinmi Vs. IGP
(supra) when he said;

“That a person
protected under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, going by its provisions,
can be investigated by the police for an alleged crime or offence is, in my
view, beyond dispute.  To hold otherwise
is to create a monstrous situation whose manifestation may not be fully
appreciated until illustrated… the evidence may be useful for impeachment
purposes if the House of Assembly may have need of it.  It may no doubt be used for prosecution of
the said incumbent Governor after he has left office.  But to do nothing under the pretext that a
Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the society”.
25 

Perhaps
the Supreme Court was only confirming the public opinion on this issue
vis-à-vis the pervading act of corruption in high places – a cankerworm that all
have agreed needs to be comprehensively addressed if Nigeria must see
development and its people take advantage of its enormous God given
resources.  Everybody, particularly to
those of us who belong to the Sociological school of jurisprudence, it would
have been unimaginable if the Supreme Court had reinstated the decision of the
High Court to the effect that because of the Constitutional immunity a Governor
cannot be investigated and the speculative assertion that  “investigation
will lead to arrest and prosecution.”

 I know as a matter of
law and practice that, not all investigations lead to arrest and prosecution.  As men and women in the security network you also
know this too. 

I agree
fully with the Lordships of the Supreme Court when they said that:

“Criminal proceedings
do not include police investigation as an act. 
The findings or the result or conclusions reached eventually in the
investigation could.  It is true that the
evidence required in the course of police investigation may be used in criminal
proceedings and become decisive of their outcome.”

I submit
that this decision has clearly whittled down the potency of the immunity clause
contained in the Constitution.  We only
need to take full advantage of the development in order to forcefully instill
discipline, transparency and accountability in Governance. I am therefore going
to dwell more on the subject of investigation in order to take full advantage
of the judgment.

But
before I do that, let me conclude on the scope of the clause by saying that authorities
agree that section 308 does not apply to proceedings in election petition cases
involving the election of the Governor. 
In Alliance for Democracy Vs. Ayodele Fayose No. 1,26    Muri Okunola JCA (Now of blessed memory) said
and I quote:

“the provisions of
section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are not
applicable to confer immunity on a state Governor in an election petition
involving his election to preclude the issuance of subpoena on him? Or
put in another way, the immunity provided by the provisions of section 308 of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 on a State Governor is
put in abeyance when his election is being disputed before an Election Tribunal
as to make him amenable to being compelled by the subpoena to tender
document(s) or give evidence before the Election Tribunal”.
27 

At this
juncture, may I say that the issue is not about the challenges of Immunity in
our constitutional jurisprudence but about the relevance of Immunity itself,
having regards to the nations contemporary experience in governance.  After all, the immunity covers the President,
the vice President and 36 State Governors and their Deputies only out of the
multitude of political office holders that are in one position of authority or
the other.  Even, for the category of
people covered by the Immunity, their children, wives and cronies are not in
any way covered.  Secondly, the cover is
not for life.  It operates only while in
office so its effect is to postpone the day of reckoning only. It does not
remove it and what more there is no statute of limitation against crime.   

The
challenges that we face for me are how to have an effective and functional
crime investigation system and effective policing and monitoring of high
profile suspects.  How to evolve the
necessary political will, courage and determination to punish offenders, irrespective
of their social status. How to equip the Police and other specialized
investigative agencies such as the ICPC, EFCC and the Special Fraud Unit of the
Police in order to have an efficient criminal justice administration system.   

The
business of crime investigation has gone far beyond, “face me I face you” interview.  With modern technology an individual can be
investigated without him knowing about it. 
Gone are the days of “manual” investigations where a suspect is arrested
even without sufficient evidence upon which to charge or caution him. The Agencies
must in the course of their investigation reach a stage where it becomes
apparent to them from evidence gathered by them that there is sufficient cause
to believe that an accused has been discovered.   

Added to
this is the need for the Law Enforcement Agents to take advantage of the
enormous powers donated to them by the Law for credible discharge of their
duties and responsibilities. For instance, there is, for the EFCC a general and
asset investigation unit established under Section 12 of the EFCC (Establishment)
Act 2004 which is charged with the responsibility for the prevention and
detection of offences in violation of the provisions of the Act. There is also
the provision for identification and tracing of proceeds and properties
involved in any offence under the Act. 
By virtue of Section 42 of the EFCC Act, the EFCC, I submit can
investigate the asset of any person in or out of power suspected to have run
foul of not only the EFCC Act itself but also the Money Laundering Act, since
most of the ill gotten wealth will constitute an offence under the Money Laundering
Law anyway.  

Also, enormous
powers are vested in the ICPC and the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigerian Police.  Section 6 of the Act empowers the operatives
to where reasonable grounds exist for suspecting that any person has conspired
to commit or has committed an offence under the ICPC Act or any other law
prohibiting corruption to receive any report, investigate them and in
appropriate cases to prosecute the offenders.  

These
powers are there. The challenge is to put them to effective and productive use
in order to maintain law and order and instill sanity in our political office
holders. Still talking above effective and efficient crime investigation, two
factors I believe are predominantly responsible for the shoddy and abysmal
performance in crime investigation in Nigeria. These are lack of proper funding
and Corruption. I won’t bother you
to talk about corruption; it is a vice we all know.   

With
regards to lack of proper funding, this is what the Tell Magazine of June 6th 2005 – a popular news magazine
in Nigeria quoting his interview with a Police officer said.   

“According to the
D.P.O. as recent as 1997/1998 corruption in the force was something that was
done with utmost discretion and with facts unlike today that policemen on stop
and search brazenly demand money from members of the public and sometimes even
kill for failure to drop the mandatory N20. But it is no one’s fault.  Previously D.P.O’s received quarterly
allocations for the running of their stations while operational materials like
statement forms for both complainant and suspect, duplicating papers, biros,
files and bail bonds were supplied from the headquarters to the stations.  But suddenly the quarterly allocations
stopped.  Initially, we thought it was a
temporary thing and D.P.O’s started to bring these things from their pockets
but when it persisted, they had to resort to what is now called in the force
“Self Generating Fund”

The D.P.O continued
in his interview with the Tell Magazine by saying that

“The quarterly allocation was meant for
fueling of patrol vehicles for outside investigations, payment of informants
and other

expenses. It is this money they (The
Police Men) take from you that they use to fuel their cars and do all the
police work.

The man is not
through yet. This was his conclusion

“The day policemen stop collecting this
N20.00 you people complained about, police activities will grind to a
halt”. 

This is what another D.P.O
said

“DPO’s no longer get impress to run their
stations, nobody buys them fuel repair their patrol vans and other operational
vehicles when they break down. Even when you lose any of your men, you as the
DPO have to make the burial arrangement and raise money for taxing your men.
The situation is bad”.

Ladies and gentleman,
I am not aware of any Police Force of any Nation given this state and
circumstances, including a deplorable level of incentive and encouragement that
can operate optimally. These are the real challenges and these are the issues
that should attract our primary attention. I wonder if the above does not still
represent the position even today except perhaps the Policemen serving in Lagos
State. I was made to understand that Lagos State through its autonomous
Security Fund provides enormously for the Police in terms of provision of
equipments, incentives and operational vehicles. 

In conclusion
therefore, even, if the immunity clause in the constitution is removed today and
I am totally in support of its removal from the constitution, if nothing is
done in the direction I have highlighted in this paper to make the system work,
abuse and misuse of power will continue unabated.

I thank you for
listening.

DELE ADESINA ESQ.,
SAN



END NOTE

1.       Dele Adesina is a Senior Advocate of
Nigeria, Past General Secretary of Nigerian Bar Association.  A member of the distinguished Body of
Benchers and  Principal Counsel in the
Chambers of Dele Adesina & Co. 109, Opebi Road, Ikeja, Lagos and 23, Kolda
Street, off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Abuja.

2.       Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

3.       Section 308(2) Constitution 1999

4.       Section 308(3) of the Constitution 1999

5.       Advanced Learners Dictionary at page 598

6.       Black’s Law Dictionary 7th
Edition Page 752

7.       Black’s Law Dictionary 7th
Edition Page 753

8.       Section 316 Criminal Code deals with the
offence of murder which is liable to death penalty.

9.       Which attracts a punishment of 3 years
imprisonment.

10.     Quoted in the book – Judicial foot Prints –
of Justice C. Oputa by George Oputa page 66

11.     See the paper titled: The Limit of
Executive Immunity by Femi Falana Esq.

12.     ibid

13.     (1981) 2 NCLR 349

14.     (1985)
6 NCLR pg 338
at page 342

15.     (1985)
6 NCLR pg 338

16.     (2001) 33 wrn
144

17.     Per Oduyemi JCA Alamieyeseigha Vs. Teiwa
(Supra) at page 161

18.     (1974) nscc
542;

19.     (2001) 16 NWLR pt. 740 pg. 670

20.     (2004) 44 WRN pg. 19

21.     Alamieyeseigha V. Teiwa & Ors at page 147

22.     (2002) 7 NWLR part 767 pg. 606

23.     (2002) 7 NWLR part 665 pg. 481
particularly at page 528

24.     (2002) 7 NWLR part 767 pg. 606

25.     See generally (2002) 7 NWLR part 767 pg.
606.

26.     (2004) 26 WRN 34

27.     Quote by Muri Okunola JCA