Ever since independence, the criminal justice system of Nigeria has accommodated capital punishment which is also known as “death penalty”, as a punitive measure for specifically defined offences. In the past 15 years, scholars, researchers and students of penology and criminology have championed the debate for abolition of death penalty and vice versa. As of December 31st 2013, the number of abolitionist states stood at 140, while that of the retentionist States stood at 58, with Nigeria being one of the retentionist countries .

On one hand, those who support the continued retention of death penalty under the Nigeria Legal System argue that death penalty is the obvious punishment just enough for a person who has taken the life of another or for crimes that threaten the very existence or survival of a State. However, the crux of their arguments centres mainly on the purpose of deterrence, which death penalty is alleged to have on would be offenders. On the other hand, those who argue against the continued retention of the death penalty under the Nigeria criminal justice system argues that the true fact is that their intention for continued retention, is hidden deep in the obnoxious, though unadmitted desire for retribution.

In this research work the case for and against the abolition of capital punishment under Nigeria’s criminal justice system is examined with the view of ascertaining which system is most favourable for Nigeria.

This work is divided into four chapters: chapter one deals with an introduction to this work, the historical framework of capital punishment in Nigeria and the definition of terms used in the work.

Chapter two deals with the concept of punishment, its various types, some modes of execution of capital punishment.

Chapter three covers the arguments for and against the abolition of capital punishment. Flaws in the arguments on both sides are also considered.

Chapter four deals with the conclusion of this research work and plausible recommendations.

The methodology employed is doctrinal and argumentative. Recourse would be made to textbooks, Law reports, journals and editorials. Materials would be sourced from law libraries and the internet.