Revisiting the Executive Immunity of Governors in Nigeria’s Constitutional Democracy: A Comparative Jurisprudential Analysis

Abstract

This article examines the scope, justification and constitutional implications of executive immunity under section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), with particular emphasis on Governors and Deputy Governors. It aims to determine whether Nigeria’s broad, status-based immunity remains compatible with the principles of constitutional democracy, the Rule of Law, equality before the law and executive accountability. The study specifically examines the historical and jurisprudential foundations of executive immunity, its judicial interpretation in Nigeria, the relationship between immunity and impeachment, and the extent to which comparative constitutional experience offers useful lessons for reform. The research adopts a doctrinal methodology, relying principally on constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial decisions, legal literature and comparative jurisprudence, particularly the constitutional experience of the United States. The article examines the distinction between personal and functional immunity and evaluates the Nigerian framework against contemporary approaches to executive accountability. The study finds that although executive immunity serves a legitimate institutional purpose by protecting public office holders from frivolous or politically motivated proceedings, the breadth of section 308 creates significant accountability challenges, particularly where immunity extends to private conduct and where other mechanisms of constitutional oversight are weak. The article recommends a transition from blanket immunity to a restrictive and functionally differentiated model, supported by safeguards against political prosecution, stronger legislative oversight and an independent prosecutorial mechanism. It concludes that immunity should protect the effective functioning of constitutional government without becoming a shield against legitimate legal accountability.