Constitutional Immunity Clause And The Fight Against Corruption In Nigeria

Abstract

One of the most pressing debates in Nigeria today is on the continued retention,
or removal, of the immunity clause enshrined in section 308 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Some scholars canvass for
the removal of the immunity clause because its retention, they argue, appears
ironic in view of the stance of the government to rid governance of corrupt
practices, including misappropriation of public funds. Others have called for
its retention while another set of scholars further ask that it be extended to
the leadership of the National Assembly and the States Houses of Assembly.
This latter group has said that the Senate President, the Deputy Senate
President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Deputy Speaker
as well as the Speakers of the States Houses of Assembly and their Deputies
should be granted immunity under the Constitution. This article discusses the
immunity clause and its sphere, extent and limits as it relates to the officers
protected, the arguments for and against its retention in the Constitution, as
well as state practices in other jurisdictions.It concludes that it is expedient to
retain the clause, but the call in some quarters to expand it to cover the
leadership of the National Assembly and States Houses of Assembly is not
viable.