Laws are never passed by emotions. The proposed removal of immunity clause which is geared towards checking executive lawlessness, promote responsive and responsible leadership will most likely not serve its intent and purpose in Nigeria for the following reasons:

1. Removal of immunity clause will expose the President and Governors to civil and criminal prosecution, and would impermissibly interfere with their capacity and ability to perform their constitutionally assigned functions. We cannot afford to have them distracted and their energies diverted by concern with lawsuits.

2. It will give room for those who lost at the ballot box and the pull-him-down agents to push forward fictitious petitions and open floodgate of litigation aimed at harassing and embarrassing elected public office holders.

3. If the immunity clause is removed and they are charged for criminal personal liability, they will use public funds to buy legal services. With the funds at their disposal, they can frustrate and even evade justice.

4. Removal of the immunity clause does not mean that once they are charged to court they'll immediately be impeached. A criminal trial in court can take several months or years to conclude and the accused has the right of appeal. In this way, a President or a Governor may complete his term before he is finally convicted.

5. They appointed some of the judges that will try their case(s), and the President appoints the IGP or EFCC boss that may want to prosecute him. I do not see how such a case or cases can be concluded without prejudice and bias.

6. We already have an impeachment clause in the constitution. A president or a governor can be swiftly removed from office for gross misconduct which includes the commission of a crime. Category of impeachment is not limited to abuses of official power. Impeachment process is better suited to the task because it is fast and efficient. It is faster than a criminal trial and there is no appeal from the verdict of the assembly except if removed unconstitutionally. Once the executive is removed, he can then be prosecuted and his removal will facilitate effective political administration of the state and place the political system on a healthy course. Surely, the arguments for the removal of immunity clause has already been trumped by the impeachment clause.

7. How many of the former governors who have lost their immunity have we been able to prosecute and convict years after leaving office?

Instead of removing immunity, we should be clamoring for real separation of powers between the three tiers of government. Separation of powers is not absolute; it is instead qualified by the doctrine of checks and balances. Legislative docility, a dependent judiciary and toothless anti graft agencies are the real problems. These institutions need to run effectively before we can totally check the excesses of the executive. We can also allow them to complete their term in office before making them account for their errors of omission or commission. To wound them by a criminal proceeding while in office is to hamstring the operation of the whole government apparatus.