WHEN THE GAVEL FALLS WRONGLY: THE TRAGEDY OF WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT

The cornerstone of any just society is a legal system designed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty offenders. We as a society, place immense trust in the courtroom, in the system, in the government, in the law, and most especially in our constitution, which is supposed to guide us and protect us from any form of injustice. 

But what then happens when all these systems and agencies in which we put our utmost trust fails us? When they become an engine of profound injustice, possibly through errors, oversight, racism, or even corruption?

This article is set to examine the problem of wrongful imprisonment arising from failures within the criminal justice system and process, particularly judicial errors which seal the fate of accused persons. To the best of my judgment, such outcomes are not isolated incidents but rather reflect systemic weakness that allows guilty persons to evade or escape justice while innocent individuals are punished. This article aims to explore the factors that contribute to these problems and to consider possible reforms aimed at reducing miscarriages of justice.

At the heart of criminal justice system and to ensure fairness and equity, there lies a principle than “an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty”, this principle lies in accordance with the law and the constitution at large. This principle underpins the requirement that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a standard deliberation set accordingly and with high respect to minimize the risk of convicting the innocent. Nigerian courts have consistently reaffirmed this safeguard and rule, holding that any doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused. This approach mirrors international human rights standard as this principle is followed in most countries, it emphasizes that criminal convictions must follow strict adherence to the due process and fair trials guaranteed by the constitution of that country.

Despite these protections, laws, ideals and principles, the practical operation of criminal justice system frequently produces outcomes that go against and contradicts those protections, laws, ideals and principles. One recurring failure is the acquittal of guilty persons, not necessarily because innocence has been proven or established, but because of investigative lapses, prosecutorial incompetence, or technical procedural errors. Courts are often constrained to discharge accused persons where evidence has been improperly obtained or presented or even in cases or situations whereby a wrong judgement is passed. These facts and examination of the justice system exposes institutional weakness and that undermines and weakens the public trust and confidence in the justice system.

More disturbing, and also more common than you can think, is the phenomenon of wrongful imprisonment, where innocent persons are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. Wrongful convictions often result from reliance of unreliable confessional statements, mistaken eyewitness identification, or circumstantial evidence that does that does that meet the standard of proof or evidence that can be forged in favor of the accused or accuser in respect to the crime committed. Nigerian appellant courts have repeatedly cautioned against uncritical reliance on confessions, stressing that such statements must be voluntary, positive, and in accordance or consistent with other evidence or proof before they can ground a conviction but this sometimes is not followed through to the end. This failure by trial courts to adhere strictly to these principles has, in several instances, led to incarceration of innocent individuals.

Judicial error occupies a particularly troubling position in wrongful imprisonment discourse because the judiciary represents the final checkpoint in the criminal process. Even in some cases where investigative and prosecutorial failures occur, it is the duty and responsibility of the court to independently and objectively evaluate the evidence before it. Errors such as misdirection on the law, improper evaluation of facts, or undue reliance on suspicion can have irreversible consequences. The supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently maintained that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Similar concerns have been voiced in other jurisdictions, where appellate courts have overturned convictions founded on weak or speculative evidence.

Beyond legal error, human bias plays a subtle or significant role in judicial decision making. Judges, as human actors, are not immune to cognitive bias, societal stereotypes, or external pressure or influence, particularly in high profile or emotionally driven cases. International studies on miscarriages of justice reveals that race, class, and social status often influence and corrupt outcomes within criminal justice systems, contributing to disproportionate convictions of marginalized groups most especially individuals who are poor and lack influential connections needed to get out of those situations. Where such biases remain unchecked, the judicial process risks legitimizing injustice under the superficial guise of legality.

Wrongful imprisonment constitutes a grave violation of the fundamental human rights entrenched in the constitution. The deprivation of liberty resulting from judicial errors strikes at the core of human dignity and the rule of law. International human rights instruments reinforce the principle that no person should be treated as guilty or punished without lawful conviction by a competent court.³ Where courts themselves become the source of wrongful imprisonment, the state bears responsibility not only for the loss of liberty but also for the failure to provide effective safeguards against injustice. 

 The consequences of wrongful imprisonment extend far beyond incarceration. Victims often suffer long-term psychological trauma, social stigma, economic hardship, and irreversible disruption to their personal and professional lives. At the societal level, wrongful convictions erode trust in the justice system and foster perceptions of inequality, selective enforcement, and institutional unfairness. These consequences weaken the legitimacy of criminal justice and threaten social cohesion. In some cases the victims never actually get their lives that were taken from them back, some spend many years in jail and they loose touch with reality. 

Addressing wrongful imprisonment therefore requires a candid acknowledgment of judicial fallibility and systemic weakness. Reform efforts must focus on improving judicial training, strengthening standards for evidence evaluation, ensuring effective legal representation, and establishing independent mechanisms for reviewing potential miscarriages of justice. Comparative experiences from other jurisdictions demonstrate that such measures are essential to restoring confidence in criminal justice systems and preventing the recurrence of injustice.

In the final analysis, the true measure of any criminal justice system lies not in the number of convictions it secures, but in its ability to distinguish accurately between guilt and innocence. When innocent persons are punished while the guilty evade accountability, the system does more than malfunction; it undermines its own moral and legal foundation. Wrongful imprisonment arising from judicial error is especially disturbing because it reflects failure at the final stage of the justice process, where courts are expected to serve as the ultimate guardians against injustice. Once judicial authority is misapplied, error acquires the appearance of legitimacy, making injustice both enduring and difficult to correct. 

As this article has shown, such failures are rarely accidental. They are often the product of systemic weaknesses, including improper evaluation of evidence, overreliance on suspicion, and insufficient regard for the burden placed on the prosecution. Courts have long cautioned that criminal conviction must rest on credible and compelling proof, not conjecture or assumption. When this standard is diluted, the presumption of innocence is rendered meaningless, and the risk of punishing the innocent becomes unacceptably high and more common in the society. 

Ultimately, preventing wrongful imprisonment requires more than procedural formality; it demands a justice system that prioritizes substantive fairness and accountability. The right to liberty and the right to a fair trial impose a continuing obligation on courts to exercise vigilance, restraint, and independence in criminal adjudication. Only by strengthening these safeguards and acknowledging the reality of judicial fallibility can criminal justice systems restore public confidence and fulfil their foundational promise of justice.