In March 2025, Nigeria’s House of Representatives advanced a bill to remove the immunity clause protecting governors and vice presidents from prosecution during their tenure, aiming to curb corruption. However, the bill’s progress stalled after the House rescinded its second reading for further debate, reflecting political resistance. Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution currently shields these officials from civil and criminal proceedings while in office. This post examines the motivations behind the push, its legal and political implications, and the challenges as of June 2025.
The Immunity Clause: Origins and Purpose
Section 308 grants immunity to the president, vice president, governors, and deputy governors to protect them from frivolous lawsuits that could hinder governance. Inspired by similar provisions in other democracies, it has been controversial in Nigeria due to widespread corruption, allowing officials to evade accountability until their terms end, per The Nation.
Motivations for the Amendment
The push to remove immunity stems from:
- Public Demand: A 2023 survey found 67% of Nigerians support removing immunity to enhance accountability.
- High-Profile Cases: Cases like former Ekiti Governor Ayodele Fayose’s post-tenure prosecution highlight delayed justice, per FIJ.
- Anti-Corruption Agenda: The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) endorsed the amendment to deter corruption.
- Political Strategy: Some see it as a populist move to regain public trust amid legislative criticism.
Proposed Changes and Process
Sponsored by Solomon Bob, the bill seeks to amend Section 308 to exclude governors and vice presidents, leaving immunity for the president and deputy governors. It requires a two-thirds majority in both legislative chambers and approval by 24 state assemblies. On March 26, 2025, it passed its second reading, but on March 27, the House rescinded this to allow more debate, per Punch NG.
Legal and Political Implications
Removing immunity could:
- Enhance Accountability: Immediate prosecutions could deter corruption.
- Increase Judicial Burden: Frivolous lawsuits may clog courts.
- Cause Instability: Politically motivated prosecutions could destabilize governance.
The selective exclusion of the president has been criticized as creating a “hierarchy of immunity,” per Nigeria Info.
Challenges and Opposition
The amendment faces:
- State Resistance: Governors influence state assemblies, which may block approval.
- Political Opposition: The Nigeria Governors’ Forum opposes the move, arguing it undermines federalism.
- Public Skepticism: Some view it as a legislative distraction, per Nigerian Observer.
A PDP lawmaker predicted the bill’s failure, calling it “dead on arrival” due to presidential resistance, per Punch NG.
Global Comparisons
In the U.S., governors lack immunity, as seen in the 2006 conviction of Illinois Governor George Ryan. South Africa removed presidential immunity in 1996, enabling accountability but risking political prosecutions. Nigeria needs safeguards to balance accountability and stability.
Update
As of June 2025, the bill remains under review, with no further progress reported. The rescission suggests political hurdles, and its passage is uncertain, per Tekedia.