By OLAYINKA ATILOLA
When the President of the Nigerian Senate, Senator GodswillAkpabio, recently declared during debate on the proposed Suicide Prevention Bill 2026 that a person who attempts suicide should either succeed or face imprisonment, his remarks were undoubtedly disturbing, somewhat insensitive and reflect a fundamental misreading of tae essence of the Bill. The Senator’s comments raise a fundamental question about our society’s understanding of suicide, mental health and the proper purpose of the law. With due respect to the distinguished Senate President, the suggestion that someone who survives a suicide attempt should be sent to prison illustrates precisely why Nigeria must urgently reconsider its approach to this deeply sensitive public-health problem.
A person who has reached the point of contemplating or attempting suicide is likely experiencing profound psychological distress. That distress may arise from depression or another mental health condition, unbearable personal circumstances, financial hardship, bereavement, relationship difficulties, chronic illness or a combination of factors that have overwhelmed the individual’s ability to cope. Not every suicide attempt is attributable to a diagnosable mental illness, but an overwhelming majority of suicidal behaviour is related to mental distress, and as such, every attempt on one’s life warrants serious attention, compassionate assessment and appropriate intervention.
In the existing legal framework related to attempted suicide in Nigeria, Section 327 of the Criminal Code Act criminalises attempted suicide, while Section 231 of the Penal Code similarly provides for punishment in jurisdictions where that provision applies. Under these provisions, a person who survives an attempt to end their life may face prosecution and imprisonment. This position runs at variance with, and cross purposes to, global best practice in mental-health care and is also out of tune with the more modern National Mental Health Act (2021) of Nigeria, which recognises the importance of appropriate intervention in mental health emergencies, including situations involving attempted suicide. Maintaining a punitive approach while advancing a framework for compassionate mental healthcare creates an inconsistency that responsible law-making should seek to resolve.
Nigeria will not be reinventing the wheel or doing anything novel by decriminalising attempted suicide. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), at least 59 countries have explicitly decriminalised suicide and suicide attempts worldwide, including at least six African countries (Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Lesotho, Zambia and Botswana). The WHO policy brief on suicide prevention identifies criminalisation as an obstacle to effective suicide prevention, particularly because fear of prosecution, stigma and shame can discourage people from seeking help. The question, therefore, is not whether suicide should be encouraged or condoned. It is whether criminal punishment is a rational, effective or humane way of preventing it. The evidence and principles of modern public health strongly favour a different approach.
To start with, criminalising suicidal behaviour may discourage people experiencing suicidal thoughts from seeking help. Someone who fears prosecution may conceal their distress from family members, avoid a hospital or hesitate to disclose suicidal thoughts to a healthcare professional. By the time intervention occurs, an opportunity for prevention may have been lost. In addition, it can discourage families from promptly seeking emergency medical assistance for a loved one who has attempted suicide. Also, fear of legal consequences and social embarrassment may encourage concealment when urgent medical attention is needed. Furthermore, prosecution can compound the suffering of someone who is already vulnerable. Imprisonment, a criminal record and the stigma associated with prosecution may deepen social isolation and undermine recovery, reintegration and future help-seeking. Moreover, criminalisation can undermine the collection of reliable information about suicide attempts. If incidents are concealed for fear of punishment, the resulting data will be incomplete, making it more difficult for public-health authorities to understand the problem and design effective interventions.
Indeed, the objective of suicide prevention should be to make it easier for people in distress to seek help, not to create additional reasons for them to remain silent. One argument sometimes advanced against decriminalisation is that removing criminal penalties may encourage suicide attempts. This concern deserves to be addressed, but it should not be confused with, in itself, evidence that punishment prevents suicide. Rather, it recognises that the person who attempts suicide should be treated first and foremost as someone whose life and wellbeing require protection. Decriminalisation changes the state’s response from punishment to prevention, assessment, treatment and appropriate follow-up.
Senator Akpabio is entitled to express reservations about a proposed law. Indeed, the legislative process should allow rigorous scrutiny of its provisions, including the relationship between federal legislation and applicable state laws, the practical arrangements for implementation and the resources required to deliver effective suicide prevention services. However, the suggestion that someone who survives a suicide attempt should be imprisoned—or, more disturbingly, that they should have succeeded in dying to avoid punishment—is difficult to reconcile with the principles of humane governance on the one hand and contemporary medical practice on the other. The purpose of criminal law is not to punish a person merely because they have survived a moment of extreme vulnerability.
Nor should the possibility of imprisonment become an additional burden for someone who may already be struggling to find reasons to live.
With respect, the argument that decriminalisation might encourage suicide should prompt a closer examination of the evidence rather than an automatic defence of existing law. If the objective is to save lives, we must ask which approach is more likely to achieve it: threatening survivors with imprisonment or ensuring that they receive timely, appropriate and sustained care. The Senate President’s remarks should not obscure the significance of the legislative process now underway. Senator AsuquoEkpenyong deserves commendation for sponsoring the bill and bringing this important issue before the National Assembly. He has graciously taken the notable position of the Federal Executive Council earlier this year in support of decriminalising attempted suicide beyond mere executive aspiration into the legislative arena. The Senate’s decision to allow the bill to proceed beyond second reading provides an opportunity for legislators, medical professionals, mental-health advocates, legal experts and the wider public to contribute constructively to its development.
The Nigerian Medical Association stands for the preservation of human life, the promotion of health and the protection of human dignity. From this perspective, decriminalising attempted suicide is not merely a technical amendment to the criminal law. It is an important step towards a society in which people experiencing severe psychological distress can seek help without fear of prosecution. A law is only as good as the lives it helps to protect.
•Prof. Atilola, a practising psychiatrist in Nigeria…
The post Cry for help not a crime: Why Nigeria must decriminalise attempted suicide appeared first on Vanguard News.