When a citizen reaches the depths of despair and attempts to end his or her life, what should the state's response be? Should it be a pair of handcuffs and prison or a helping hand and rehabilitation? These are the fundamental questions brought to the fore by the Suicide Prevention Bill, sponsored by Senator Asuquo Ekpenyong, which scaled its second reading in the Nigerian Senate on October 13, 2026 . The bill seeks to dismantle a colonial legacy by repealing Section 327 of the Criminal Code Act and Section 231 of the Penal Code, which currently penalise suicide survivors with up to one year in prison. This legislative step signals a major shift toward treating mental health issues as sympathetic medical emergencies rather than draconian criminal acts.

However, the path to reform faces notable friction from the very top of the legislature.

During the debate, Senate President Godswill Akpabio reportedly opposed the bill and was quoted to have verbalised his opposition thus: "If you attempt suicide, make sure you die. Anyone who attempts and fails will go to jail." The Senate President was said to have argued that removing criminal penalties could inadvertently encourage the act . He was alsoreported to have further stressed that any changes in the law,must involve state houses of assembly. While his concerns stem from a desire to preserve life through deterrence, criminal law experts argue that a person in the throes of a psychiatric crisis is rarely deterred by the threat of a prison sentence. Instead, criminalisation often forces families to hide incidents and pushes vulnerable individuals to ensure their attempts are fatally certain and morbidly conclusive, just to avoid prosecution.

The need for legal empathy is further underscored by the harsh socio-economic realities squeezing everyday Nigerians. The soaring cost of living, severe inflation, systemic unemployment, and widespread economic hardship have driven many citizens to their breaking points. When financial survival becomes a daily struggle, the toll on mental health is catastrophic. Labeling the tragic manifestations of acute societal stress as criminal offenses is not only double punishment but the weaponisation of poverty as an ingredient of criminal liability. The state cannot justly penalise citizens for buckling under the weight of economic pressures that it has a constitutional duty to alleviate or ameliorate if it cannot totally eradicate same.

From a constitutional perspective therefore, penalising survivors directly clashes with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter IV of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. Specifically, Section 34 guarantees the Right to Dignity of the Human Person, protecting citizens from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Parading, detaining, and jailing an individual who has just survived a severe psychological breakdown is a clear violation of that dignity. While some legal analysts argue under Section 45 that the state can legally restrict certain rights in the interest of "public safety, public order, or public health," applying this restriction to suicide survivors is a misstep. Specifically, Section 45 is meant to curb actions that threaten the wider public. A suicide attempt, while profoundly tragic, is an inward-facing act that poses no direct physical threat to the community. Using public health as a justification to imprison someone who actually needs medical care turns the purpose of Section 45 on its head.

In navigating this delicate balance, Nigeria can look to recent examples across the continent.

The criminalisation of suicide in many countries, including Kenya, is a legacy of the colonial era. The relevant Kenyan law punished individuals for “attempting suicide” with up to two years in prison.

In January 2025, the High Court of Kenya struck down the laws criminalizing suicide . The Honourable Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that penalising a mental health crisis is an unconstitutional violation of human dignity and amounts to health-based discrimination .

Charity Muturi, a Kenyan mental health activist, was a leading petitioner in this landmark case, working closely with other Kenyan NGOs. She argued that decriminalizing suicide was an important step to ensuring that people living with mental health disorders are able to seek care when it is needed. In a cruel irony of fate,two months prior to the landmark ruling, Charity herself died by suicide.

Ghana's, legal landscape bore the weight of colonial-era laws that dated back to British rule. These laws, deeply rooted in colonial thinking, regarded suicide attempts as criminal offenses. Under the Criminal Offences Act of 1960, attempted suicide was considered a crime, leading to convictions and jail sentences ranging from three months to five years. This punitive approach mirrored the outdated colonial perspective on mental health.

Such colonial-era laws, including Section 57(2) treating suicide attempts as "a misdemeanour," failed to consider the underlying mental health issues driving individuals to attempt suicide. They perpetuated stigma and discrimination against those experiencing severe mental distress, depression, extreme shame, poverty, health challenges, or family and relationship problems.

On the legislative front therefore, Ghana took a direct statutory route by passing the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Act, 2023, which completely wiped out prison sentences for survivors and shifted their care to the country's mental health framework . However, Ghana's law drew criticism for legally labeling all survivors as having a "severe mental disorder"; a blanket phrase which denigrate a victim and could possibly create a social stigma ,impact employment and worsen societal rehabilitation.

As the Suicide Prevention Bill moves to the Senate Committees for public hearings, Nigeria has a unique opportunity to learn from these regional examples . Lawmakers can address the Senate President's concerns about deterrence by maintaining strict criminal penalties for third parties who aid, abet, or encourage suicide, just as Ghana did. At the same time, by aligning the bill with Chapter IV of the Constitution, the National Assembly can craft a humane, health-focused law. Decriminalisation is not about condoning self-harm; it is about recognizing that a psychiatric crisis requires a medical team and a robust support system. And not an arrest,not a criminal trial,and definitely not a prison sentence, and not a prison warden.