AT a time, 111 of the world’s 192 nations have abolished the death sentence, with others on their way to doing so, our National Assembly wants to add to the five offences that already attract the death penalty under our laws.

The offences that  are punished by death are murder, treason, treachery, directing and controlling or presiding at an unlawful trial by ordeal from which death results, and armed robbery. The Sharia criminal law in some states increased offences punishable by death by including sexual crimes.

With the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act which approved death sentence for terrorist acts that result in the death, the Senate also added to the number of capital sentences.

Other offences to be punished by death are kidnapping, oil bunkering, piracy and airplane hijacks. A maximum of 10 years imprisonment awaits those  involved in training potential terrorists, passing or withholding terrorist information, aiding or harbouring terrorist and funding terrorist activities.

Ordinarily, we should support the law, which the House of Representatives is still debating. However, there are grounds to ask that the death sentence be removed from the punishments.

Death sentences are extreme, final, yet they have failed to serve as a deterrent to criminals. It is a maximum punishment that makes criminals more violent. Once abused, there is no redemption, a suspect killed in error is gone for all times.

Armed robbery is the best example of how the death sentence has failed to deter criminals. The Robbery and Firearms Act that gained prominence in 1970, is a  version of a 1959 colonial law. Each time it proved unable to minimise armed robbery, it was amended to expand its provisions, yet robbers became more daring and sophisticated.

Between 1970 and 1977, it was amended thrice, all testifying to its inadequacy. More amendments followed.

Efforts should be invested more in pre-empting terrorism than in punishing it.  Every time criminals succeed, they are emboldened to make more attempts.

Our fears about abuses of the proposed law are founded on utterances like that of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole.

He told a public hearing on the bill last week: “We must do these to ensure, among other things, that the perpetrators of the October 1, 2010, Independence Anniversary bombings are brought to justice to face the full wrath of the law.” Was Mr. Bankole suggesting suspects in a 2010 crime should be punished with a 2011 law?

Such emotions lend credence to fears of abuses and the absence of depth in the formulation of the bill. There is no organisation granted specific powers to handle terrorism, agreed that all security agencies should be involved.

Ordinary Nigerians also wonder why the death sentence cannot apply to various cases of corruption against the high and mighty. Or do we not want to stop corruption?

Terrorism is bad. The best way to deal with it is to pre-empt it, not wait to kill the perpetrators, if they are ever caught. The anti-terrorism law should and must spare us waste of lives.