The debate is by no means over. Not with six persons on the death row and the recent discovery of a cocaine shop somewhere in Surulere.
But as it for the benefit of those who think that the kind of emotive debate that greeted the execution of Barthlomew Owoh, Lawal Ojulope and Bernard Ogedegbe can sway the government, Major General Tunde Idiagbon last week, with a tone of finality, let it be known that as far as death to cocaine traffickers is concerned, there is no going back. That seems to be it.
It does not make any sense to plead posthumously. Otherwise, the only persons that should have been shown some clemency were the unfortunate trio.
There was no death penalty for the offences they committed at the time of the commission.
The decree took retroactive effect and, therefore what was not a crime punishable by death when they were caught became an offence for which they had to die. It made their death pathetic.
By bringing their execution through the television to the homes of Nigerians who would normally want to be spared such horrible spectacle, their sense of pity and outrage was aroused. This helped to sharpen the debate of death penalty.
|
| But it must be clear by now to all those who have even a nodding acquaintance with the psychology of a military regime that wants to present a no-nonsense public image, that public debate, the type that gained currency following the execution of April 10, cannot change the mind of the government. |
I am opposed to death penalty, I am particularly opposed to televised public execution of either armed robbers or cocaine traffickers. It dehumanises. And it brutalises, especially youths.
There must be a more humane and civilised way of going about this thing. If it can be avoided, for God's sake, let's avoid it. Let us stop killing drug pushers.
But having killed the first three offenders, what kind of justice would it amount to this late hour to pardon subsequent convicts?
But already there is a law and it has taken its first toll from those who did not even suspect that what they were doing might lead to their death.
Those who committed the crime thereafter knew what they were doing and what they were letting themselves into. How do you go about it? Pardon them and create double standard?
I think the way to go about it is to make our objections known to the government forcefully enough without breaking the law, without daring it to a duel, without threatening fire and brimstone each time the government comes up with a decree that is percieved to be draconian and objectionable, if not obnoxious.
Apart from cocaine, there are other offences under Decree 20, ominously titled miscellaneous offences decree, which attracts death penalty.
One person, Vincent Agulannah, has already been convicted for illegally storing petroleum products in Aba, Imo State. He is awaiting death by firing squad.
If you set fire to a public building, the reward is death by firing squad. This has come about because of the frequency with which public buildings were torched once there was a large scale fraud and a probe was on or was likely to be instituted.
It is difficult to plead for anybody so evily disposed to set fire to an edifice put up through the sweat of the citizens.
Damage of any kind to public property attracts death penalty. This includes theft of electricity cables and cables belonging to NITEL. If you tamper with them in any way, the likely result would be death.
Some people have suggested that if you have faulty electrical connections in your house and two or three trips to NEPA office would not solve the problem, you cannot invite an electrician to come take a look.
Or if somewhere near your house the rat has eaten up part of your telephone wire, you cannot call somebody to join it if the NITEL chaps are not forthcoming. It might be construed to mean tampering with telephone wires.
The rat-tat, rat-tat of the executioners might be awaiting you inside Kirikiri. Out of the 14 offences listed under decree 20, eight carry death penalty.
Some of the offences are grave like unlawful dealing in crude oil, petroleum or petroleum products, dealing in cocaine, tampering with telephone wires, e.t.c. But are they grave enough to be punished by death?
The military does not pretend to be running a democratic government. But so far it has not abolished public discourse of national issues.
So why not let's take a dispassionate look at some of these law with a view of making amendments where necessary?
Idiagbon said that if death does not serve as a deterrent, he cannot see what will. So death penalty must continue. Especially since we have already created a precedent.
But so that we are not perceived as a bloody-minded society, can we not reduce the offences that attract death to a few grave ones?
The man who "tampers" with telephone wire might not be stealing the wires. He might have genuinely called a technician to take care of his erratic telephone. Must he be shot?
Under this decree, that an offence punishable by firing squad. Do not forget that companies that have many telephone and telex lines have technicians to maintain their telecommunications outfit. Will they not run foul of Decree 20 in the discharge of their duties?
It does not detract from the military nature of the government to take a look at some of these issues.
It is not a sign of weakness on the part of the government to bow to public outcry when it is reasonable to bow to public outcry when it is reasonable to do so.
That is not to lose sight of the fact that no serious government would allow itself to be blown about by public opinion on all issues because there are some vested and deeply entrenched interests whose outpourings, which are intrinsically self-serving, cannot be equated with public opinion.
But on issues that touch the lives of the citizens, government would do well to listen and take steps to make some adjustments.
Above all, government can do without retroactive decrees. Government should not look like it is ever so ready to punish it cannot wait for the people to break its laws.
