THE NIGERIAN PRISON SAGA ; AWAITING-TRIAL PERSONS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO FAIR HEARING

ABSTRACT

It is normal and principled to conduct a trial in the presence of the defendant, except on the rare occasions of trial in absentia. The court’s rationale for this practice is to ensure the full implementation of fair hearing. As we will come to see, every person — whether proven guilty or merely a suspect — is entitled to fair judicial representation in court. But this has not always been the case in Nigeria, as evidenced by the growing number of reports on prison congestion and deaths. This paper is doctrinal in that it seeks to provoke the question of human rights for all citizens, whether civilians or inmates. It raises pressing questions about the country’s treatment of suspects and the courts’ insufficiency in handling the hundreds of cases that daily fill their record books. And in the grand scheme of things, is the country violating the rights of innocent citizens who are being labelled as criminals, albeit without the opportunity to go through trial and defend themselves?

INTRODUCTION

The large number of inmates today who are being held for trial is causing a significant debate amongst lawyers, criminologists, legal researchers, and the media. Data from the Nigerian Correctional Service shows that as of January 13, 2025, the number of awaiting-trial persons stood at approximately 53,440 out of a total prison population of 79,518, constituting over 67% of prison congestion in the country.¹ This figure is deeply troubling, as it speaks against both the government and the judicial system. Many of these incarcerated individuals have been in custody for years without any clear account of the charges against them. The fact that no trial has been conducted for these inmates reflects a systemic neglect and violation of their basic rights.

According to the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCS), as of January 13, 2025, the prison population stood at 79,518, comprising 53,440 awaiting-trial persons and 26,078 convicted inmates. This imbalance — in which over 67% of the incarcerated population are awaiting-trial detainees — has led to chronic overcrowding, degrading living conditions, and the systemic violation of the rights to liberty, dignity, and fair hearing.

This phenomenon constitutes a clear breach of both domestic constitutional provisions and international human rights standards. By virtue of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), everyone has the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile. Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) reaffirms the right to liberty and security of person, including the right to be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial. Regionally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) further guarantees personal liberty and prescribes safeguards against arbitrary detention.

AWAITING-TRIAL PERSONS (ATPs)

Awaiting-trial persons (ATPs) are individuals who have been arrested, charged with a crime, and held in police or correctional custody but who have not yet been convicted, sentenced, or found guilty by a court. There is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes “reasonable time,” and it is therefore interpreted based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The Benue State University Law Journal (2019/2020) notes some guiding factors, including: the nature and complexity of the case, the availability of competent courts, the time taken by the parties to introduce evidence, et cetera. Bearing this in mind, the court in Yerima v. Borno Native Authority held that the trial of the defendant was not conducted within a reasonable time when the prosecution knew all the witnesses and the case to be brought against the defendant in a murder charge, yet kept him for a whole year without arraignment.

It is therefore logical to conclude that in cases such as Ebuka’s — which are far from uncommon — where it has taken up to seven years of confinement to even begin trial, let alone secure a conviction, the duration is unbearably unreasonable, regardless of the gravity of the alleged offence.

NIGERIAN LAW ON AWAITING-TRIAL AND CHARGED PERSONS

Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides every person the right to personal liberty, and Section 36 provides the right to fair hearing. When a person is arrested, the Constitution provides that they shall:²

1. be informed promptly, in a language they understand and in detail, of the nature of the offence;
2. be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence;
3. defend themselves in person or by legal practitioners of their own choice; and
4. examine, in person or by their legal practitioners, the witnesses called by the prosecution before any court or tribunal, and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on their behalf before the court or tribunal on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution.

Sections 35(4) and 35(5) clearly state that suspects are to be tried within a reasonable time or released on bail. It appears, however, that those responsible for managing correctional facilities treat the words “reasonable time” as a matter of subjective discretion, and it is evident that this constitutional obligation is not being fully observed.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) is a key legislative instrument designed to promote efficient criminal justice administration and reduce delay. Among its principal provisions are:

• Prohibition of arrest in lieu
• Mandatory record of arrest
• Time-bound remand orders
• Monthly inspection of detention facilities by magistrates³

Another significant statutory measure is the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019, which was enacted to reform criminal justice services and address inhumane conditions in correctional facilities.⁴

THE CAUSES OF CONGESTION OF ATPs

Nigeria’s correctional population includes a disproportionately high number of awaiting-trial persons. In several recent reporting periods, individuals held without final conviction have constituted well over half of the total inmate population. This imbalance fuels overcrowding, strains limited resources, and creates conditions that increase the risk of unrest, ill health, and security breaches.

The broader justice system also suffers. Courts become clogged with stagnant cases, correctional facilities operate beyond capacity, and public trust erodes as justice appears arbitrary and slow. The cumulative effect is a system that punishes poverty and procedural vulnerability rather than adjudicating guilt or innocence efficiently. The rising number of detainees is rapidly becoming a crisis, driven by several interconnected causes:

1. Delays in investigation and prosecution. Investigative errors and protracted delays in proceedings that should ordinarily be resolved quickly create a ripple effect — each delayed case obstructing the progress of the next, until the backlog becomes overwhelming. The police frequently cite lack of evidence as justification, but if evidence is truly lacking, the proper response is to release the suspect on bail.
2. Abuse of remand powers. In Lufadeju v. Johnson,⁵ the Supreme Court warned against the use of remand powers to circumvent established procedures. As has been widely observed, this abuse of remand powers has undermined numerous court rulings and contributed significantly to pre-trial congestion.
3. An unreasonable and ineffective bail system. The bail process is frequently encumbered with conditions that are impossible for low-income individuals to meet. Bail is constitutionally guaranteed, yet the stringent and often prohibitive financial requirements render it effectively inaccessible to those who need it most.
4. Lack of legal representation. Although Section 36(6) of the Constitution secures the defendant’s right to legal representation, many defendants cannot afford legal services. Some legal professionals provide pro bono assistance, but this is not consistently sufficient to manage the volume of cases before the courts. Early and effective legal representation is one of the strongest safeguards against unnecessary pre-trial detention. Where detainees have prompt access to competent counsel, courts are more likely to grant bail, enforce procedural timelines, and explore non-custodial measures. However, access to legal representation remains uneven, particularly at the magistrate court level. Many lawyers prioritise High Court matters, leaving lower courts underserved despite being the primary entry point into the criminal justice system. This gap disproportionately affects indigent defendants, who are least able to navigate procedural complexity without assistance.
5. Inadequate court capacity. Courts are not always sufficiently resourced — in terms of personnel, infrastructure, and operational logistics — to guarantee smooth access to legal counsel and timely justice for all those who appear before them.

THE INMATES’ RIGHTS INEVITABLY BREACHED

When congestion of this kind occurs and individuals are subjected to indefinite pre-trial detention, certain fundamental rights of the human person are unjustly forfeited. These include:

• Presumption of innocence
• Right to personal liberty
• Right to dignity of the human person
• Right to fair hearing

Beyond these, inmates in overcrowded facilities frequently endure trauma, inhumane conditions, and poor sanitation — all of which are directly contrary to the protections enshrined in Section 34 of the Constitution.

A CASE EXAMPLE

Particularly instructive is the case of Ekwenugo v. FRN.⁶ In that case, the court held that the detention of a suspect beyond a reasonable time is unconstitutional, articulating the foundational principle that “liberty is the rule and detention the exception.” This dictum encapsulates the constitutional standard that Nigerian authorities are obligated to uphold — a standard that the current state of the correctional system demonstrably fails to meet.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Reducing pre-trial detention requires coordinated reform across the justice system. Prosecutorial accountability must be strengthened through enforceable timelines for advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions and for filing decisions. Courts should adopt stricter approaches to repeated adjournments and insist on diligent prosecution. Early legal access at police stations must be protected and expanded, free from administrative interference. Investment in court infrastructure, transportation logistics, and correctional facilities is equally critical — without addressing these operational constraints, procedural reforms alone will remain ineffective.

The following specific measures are recommended:

1. Enforce the provisions of Section 36 of the Constitution by ensuring that all inmates have access to legal representation in court.
2. Mandate the full enforcement of the ACJA across all states in the country.
3. Strengthen the Legal Aid Council to ensure the delivery of efficient and consistent services to indigent defendants.
4. Direct courts to sanction unlawful arrest and abuse of detention powers, creating clear consequences for procedural violations.
5. Adequately equip courts — in terms of personnel, technology, and infrastructure — to handle the volume of cases that daily enter the justice system.
6. Apply strict judicial scrutiny to all remand applications, refusing to grant or extend remand without clear legal justification.
7. Expand non-custodial sentencing options as a structural alternative to pre-trial and post-conviction incarceration.
8. Strengthen legal aid coverage, expand duty solicitor schemes, and incentivise pro bono representation at the magistrate court level, which remains the primary entry point into the criminal justice system.

CONCLUSION

It is important to understand that every person possesses fundamental rights and a corresponding entitlement to have those rights defended — and this extends to suspects and unlawfully detained inmates alike. It cannot be disputed that the state of Nigerian correctional facilities is deeply troubling, but it is equally clear that this situation can be addressed through a comprehensive overhaul of the prison and justice systems.

The number of inmates wrongly held pending trial is rising toward catastrophic levels, with awaiting-trial persons already constituting more than two-thirds of the prison population. These are sons and daughters who have been separated from their families, often without any clear understanding of why they are being held. They have spent months — and in many cases, years — waiting for bail or trial. A suspect is only a suspect until proven guilty, and the judiciary must treat them accordingly: with the dignity due to every human person, and with the full protection of their constitutional rights.

The ease with which the Nigerian government continues to ignore this crisis has eroded public confidence and is generating a persistent institutional problem that demands not a temporary fix but a structural solution. With the country’s population continuing to grow, institutions such as the judiciary must be urgently reformed and insulated from political interference. Human rights are not aspirational principles — they must be treated as enforceable obligations, placed squarely within the framework of institutional accountability.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. CELSIR Admin, “Pre-Trial Detention in Nigeria: How Justice Delayed Ruins Lives” (January 2025), available at https://celsir.org/pre-trial-detention-in-nigeria-how-justice-delays-ruin-lives/
2. Shema, V.A. and Bem Aboho, “Trial Within a Reasonable Time Under Nigerian Law: A Legal Myth or Reality?”
3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 1999
4. Benue State University Law Journal (2019/2020)
5. Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015
6. Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019

FOOTNOTE(S):

¹ Nigerian Correctional Service (NCS) data, as reported. See also CELSIR Admin (2025), cited in Bibliography.

² Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 1999, Section 36(6)(a)–(d).

³ Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, s. 7 and related provisions.

⁴ Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019.

⁵ Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) 8 NWLR (pt. 1037) 535 (SC).

⁶ Ekwenugo v. FRN (2001) 6 NWLR (pt. 708) 171.