The House of Representatives has proposed a constitutional amendment aimed at safeguarding the life of an unborn child carried by a pregnant woman sentenced to death. The proposal was adopted by the House Committee on Constitution Review, chaired by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, and seeks to amend Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Under the proposed amendment, a new subsection would require that convicted pregnant women face life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, ensuring the protection of the unborn child.
Section 33(1) of Nigeria’s Constitution currently guarantees the right to life, stating that “every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.” The proposed amendment would insert a subsection stating that if a pregnant woman is convicted of an offence punishable by death, and pregnancy is proven to the court’s satisfaction, she shall instead be sentenced to life imprisonment.
Nigeria has long maintained the death penalty for a range of capital offences, including murder, armed robbery, and certain drug-related crimes. While executions are rare, the legal framework allows courts to impose death sentences following due process. The debate over capital punishment has been ongoing, with human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and the National Human Rights Commission advocating for either abolition or significant restrictions on its application.
Past constitutional review exercises in Nigeria have considered broader criminal justice reforms, including the protection of vulnerable populations such as juveniles and pregnant women. Court rulings in certain cases have granted stays of execution for pregnant women, citing humanitarian grounds, though there has been no codified constitutional protection until now. The proposed amendment formalises this principle within Nigeria’s highest law.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, praised the House for the initiative, describing it as progressive and humane. In a telephone interview, he argued that executing a pregnant woman amounts to “double killing,” effectively depriving the unborn child of life despite its innocence. He emphasised that the unborn child has a human right to life, which cannot be overridden by the mother’s criminal culpability.
Ozekhome drew comparisons with international constitutional principles, citing the U.S. 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. He argued that similar reasoning could be applied in Nigeria to define the unborn child as a “person” entitled to constitutional protection. He also referenced moral and religious justifications, noting biblical passages such as Psalm 139:13–16, which highlight the sanctity of life in the womb.
Constitutional lawyer Abdul Mahmud also expressed support for the amendment, stating that it reconciles criminal justice with the principle of proportionality. According to Mahmud, the unborn child should not bear the consequences of the mother’s actions, and commuting the sentence to life imprisonment reflects international human rights norms that emphasise humane treatment and personal culpability.
Mahmud further noted that the proposal invites reflection on the continued relevance of the death penalty in Nigeria. By creating exceptions for pregnant women, the amendment exposes ethical tensions within a legal system that maintains capital punishment, suggesting a need for broader criminal justice reform aligned with global human rights standards.
The House’s amendment proposal follows similar international trends, where several countries have enacted laws prohibiting the execution of pregnant women. Advocates argue that codifying this principle strengthens Nigeria’s compliance with international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognises the inherent right to life for all human beings.
The proposed amendment also includes a related initiative to insert a new Section 33A into the Constitution, guaranteeing the right of all Nigerians to a clean and healthy environment. The provision states that every person has the right to live in an environment free from pollution and degradation and to access information and participate in decisions affecting environmental quality.
The environmental rights clause aligns with past judicial decisions in Nigeria, where courts have intervened in cases of industrial pollution, illegal deforestation, and contamination of water bodies. It also reflects obligations under international instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which recognises the right to a safe and healthy environment as fundamental to human dignity and well-being.
The environmental amendment seeks to establish clear responsibilities for the state to adopt policies promoting sustainable development, protecting ecosystems, and ensuring the health and safety of present and future generations. This measure is expected to complement Nigeria’s existing environmental laws, including the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act.
Experts note that the constitutional recognition of environmental rights could strengthen enforcement mechanisms by providing citizens with a legal basis to hold both public and private actors accountable for environmental harm. The amendment also aligns Nigeria with global human rights trends recognising environmental protection as a component of fundamental rights.
Returning to the death penalty amendment, the House Committee on Constitution Review highlighted that the proposal does not eliminate capital punishment entirely but introduces a critical humanitarian safeguard. By commuting the death sentence for pregnant women, the amendment seeks to protect an innocent life without undermining judicial authority.