Follow Us on Google
From Sola Ojo, Abuja
Nigeria’s criminal justice system is challenged by entrenched corruption networks that profit from arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention and congested correctional centres. This age-long systemic sharp practices, according to the Programme Director, CLEEN Foundation, Dr Salaudeen Hashim, have continued to undermine successive administrations, especially that of President Bola Tinubu’s reform agenda. In this interview, the social justice advocate reveals how police investigators, prosecutors, judicial officers and custodial officials sustain an alleged lucrative economy around detention and remand orders, and why state governments are failing to implement the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) despite federal commitments to justice reforms.
Tell us a bit about what you do around social Justice in Nigeria?
Yes, I have been in this space for over a decade and a half, working on social justice related issues and providing safeguards for justice within society. Justice is at the heart of development, and unfortunately, the constant decline in our justice dispensation system has created a growing revolt among citizens, pushing many to want to defend themselves or take justice into their own hands.
One of the disturbing facts today is the severe overcrowding in custodial centres across the country. Facilities originally built for 200 or 500 inmates for instance now hold 1,000 or more. Can you walk us through what is responsible for this?
Most of our custodial facilities today hold over three times their original installed capacity. Some are at 300 percent above what they are meant to hold. Several bottlenecks have contributed to this crisis.
One of the key reforms introduced through the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) was meant to help decongest custodial centres. The law outlined specific compliance measures, but many have not been properly implemented. Why is this so?
First is the Parole Board. It was designed to remove inmates who have committed minor offences and do not necessarily need to remain behind bars. Unfortunately, implementation has been slow. Second is non-custodial sentencing. Only recently have some judicial officers begun to see it as a viable alternative. Many still do not consider community service or other non-custodial options as sufficiently punitive, so they prefer committing offenders to prison even for minor offences. This practice creates deeper social problems. Someone who commits a minor offence becomes exposed to hardened criminals. Considering the current state of our custodial centres which are far from reformative such individuals often come out worse. Some even become institutionalised and repeatedly return to prison because they feel there is nothing else to aspire to outside.
What about the legal and administrative gaps contributing to the problem?
There are indeed legal inconsistencies. For instance, the ACJL requires the Controller-General of the Custodial Service to write periodically to the Chief Judge, listing inmates who need urgent consideration for release or other action. But the law uses the term “controller of custodial service” instead of “Comptroller-General”, which is a typo error. Nigeria does not have any office titled “comptroller of custodial service,” so this mistake has created implementation setbacks.
Another major issue is the slow response from the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) to requests for legal advice. The police often rely on these legal opinions to proceed with cases. The delay in issuing legal advice keeps many awaiting-trial detainees in custody far longer than necessary.
You mentioned earlier the delays in legal advice and court processes, what are the other systemic gaps affecting justice delivery particularly regarding oversight and monitoring?
Another major challenge lies in the magistrate inspection visits. The law mandates that magistrates must periodically visit detention facilities including police cells, NSCDC detention centres, and custodial centres to conduct on-the-spot assessments. Their role is to review cases, identify detainees who are unjustly held or whose cases lack merit, and order their immediate release where necessary. Unfortunately, this hardly happens.
In many states, the lack of regular visits stems from the state’s inability to provide the logistics, mechanisms, and vehicles required for such inspections. This gap is worsened by capacity challenges within the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC). The law mandates this committee to track compliance across the justice system.
If the ACJMC were functioning optimally, it would routinely advise actors in the value chain—showing them what has not been done and where gaps exist. But the committee barely meets. It is poorly funded, lacks adequate logistics, and has no proper work plan or monitoring indicators. This has created a fundamental implementation crisis. The different agencies the police, correctional service, judiciary are all working in silos. The ACJMC should have been the coordinating hub, but the structure is inactive, leaving the entire system disjointed.
Help us understand the value chain better. Who exactly are the actors, and what roles do they play?
The criminal justice value chain consists of all actors who have the legal mandate to detain, investigate, prosecute, adjudicate, and finally incarcerate. These include the Police, the NSCDC, the Judiciary (Magistrates and Judges), the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) and the Nigerian Correctional Service.
Ideally, a case should move seamlessly through this chain from arrest to investigation, then to trial, and finally to custodial services if necessary. But because coordination is weak, each actor is essentially working alone. This weakens justice delivery and fuels inefficiency.
There are also concerns about the ease with which detention orders are obtained by law enforcement, what is happening there?
Other News
This is another disturbing trend. The law allows for an extended remand order, but only under specific and limited circumstances. For example, during weekends when courts are not fully operational. Outside such situations, suspects are supposed to be taken to court immediately. Only a magistrate can issue such an order. But what we have seen is the weaponisation and commercialisation of remand orders. An informal economy has emerged around the process. Some magistrates issue remand orders frivolously whether interlocutory orders, injunctions, or orders of mandamus. Sometimes to halt, delay, or distort an ongoing process. This practice undermines justice and worsens congestion in custodial centres. It has become an industry of its own, and that is a major concern.
There have been reports of missing case files in custodial centres. What exactly does this mean and how does it affect justice delivery?
Yes, the issue of missing files is real, and it is one of the major contributors to the congestion in custodial centres. Because most of our justice institutions lack adequate digital infrastructure, they rely heavily on manual, paper-based records. Naturally, files get misplaced or go missing entirely.
We have encountered cases where individuals have stayed in detention for long periods without any case file at all. Their case simply cannot be traced. This is precisely why magistrate inspections were introduced. When magistrates visit detention facilities, they demand to see the case files of detainees. Where files cannot be produced, the magistrate has the authority to release such persons immediately. There are also situations where correctional facilities cannot present inmates in court because they have no document or file to hand over to the judge. These are serious and growing violations, and they require urgent attention and systemic reform.
You earlier mentioned that some custodial officers prefer that detainees remain longer in their facilities because it provides certain benefits. Can you shed more light on this?
Yes, unfortunately, there is a syndicate-driven economy within some custodial centres. Some officers prefer detainees to remain longer because it increases patronage and gratifications. More inmates often translate into more opportunities to extract informal payments or benefit from certain arrangements. This is deeply troubling and it violates the rights of citizens. Even individuals sentenced to death still have a constitutional right to dignity. Keeping people in custody indefinitely either to sustain an internal economy or because institutions fail to carry out their duties is a major setback. It also exposes the lack of trust citizens have in these institutions. Ideally, custodial services should periodically conduct internal reviews of the cases in their facilities. Such reviews could help them prepare the advisory reports that the law requires them to submit to the Attorney General, even before magistrate visits. This would show proactive engagement and strengthen oversight.
There are cases where people who commit petty offences such as stealing a watermelon end up staying for years. Some even come out worse and more hardened. Why is this happening, and what are the implications?
Petty crimes are a major source of injustice in our system. The Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) is a comprehensive instrument that provides several alternatives to imprisonment. For minor offences, what we call petty crimes, the law expects judges to consider alternative sentencing, especially non-custodial measures like community service. Community service is extremely valuable. We have many community needs such as public sanitation, environmental maintenance, and other tasks where offenders can productively contribute rather than languish behind bars. However, many judges hesitate to adopt non-custodial measures. Their reluctance often stems from complaints by custodial officers who are supposed to monitor community service but claim they lack adequate manpower. As a result, judges choose the easier option: sending offenders to custodial centres. This is harmful because individuals who commit minor offences are exposed to hardened criminals. By the time they return to society, they often become a greater threat. Instead of being rehabilitated, they are deformed by the system.
In some cases, people are detained because someone else committed a crime almost like proxy punishment. How does the law treat this?
The law is very clear. You cannot punish one person for another person’s crime. A father cannot be detained for a crime committed by his son. A neighbour cannot be arrested for an offence committed by someone else.
Yet, we still see such abuses because of weak enforcement, poor oversight, and a justice system that is struggling to keep pace with best practices. Strengthening monitoring, implementing non-custodial measures, and ensuring accountability would drastically reduce such unlawful detentions.
You’ve explained how petty offenders often come out worse from custodial centres. What do you think should be done to prevent hardened criminalisation in such cases?
Petty offenders often become hardened and more sophisticated while in custodial centres. Instead of being reformed, they end up interacting and networking with more experienced criminals. Over time, some even become part of larger criminal syndicates. This is a major setback for the justice system and society. What we recommend is the establishment of a dedicated unit within the custodial service to handle and monitor individuals sentenced to non-custodial community service. If we have trained personnel who focus solely on monitoring such offenders, it will give judges the confidence to use non-custodial sentencing more frequently. Only those who pose real threats to society should remain in custodial centres.
The Inspector General of Police should issue a clear executive order to all commands and divisions stating that any officer or unit caught engaging in arrest by proxy will face immediate disciplinary action. Such action is critical for rebuilding public confidence and restoring the credibility of the policing system.
Let’s fast-forward to the work CLEEN Foundation has done in the 12 project states. Can you briefly highlight what has been achieved?
Yes. In the 12 states—Ekiti, Kaduna, Plateau, Imo, Enugu, Kwara, and others, the CLEEN Foundation has recorded significant progress.
Baseline Study. We conducted a comprehensive baseline assessment that reviewed the statutory performance of all justice sector actors. Capacity Building. We identified capacity gaps and provided training for criminal justice actors across the value chain. Women Mediators Training. Recognising the importance of gender-responsive justice, we trained women mediators to strengthen community-level conflict resolution. Establishment of 12 State-Level Working Groups.These working groups now support the implementation of the Administration of Criminal Justice system in their respective states. Development of Work Plans and Advocacy Frameworks. We designed work plans, advocacy strategies, and performance indicators now guiding justice reform activities. On the improved Access to Justice, a major achievement is helping individuals with petty offences perfect their bail conditions. Many detainees lacked the means or support to meet bail requirements, and these committees now help them navigate the process. These actions are creating meaningful improvements in how justice is administered at the state level.
You have just trained some journalists as well in the implementation of ACJL. What key roles are they expected to play in strengthening the criminal justice system?
Journalists are essential to all efforts toward a better and working Nigeria. Their role includes raising public awareness, holding authorities accountable, monitoring performance across the criminal justice value chain, and spotlighting injustices and human rights violations. But most importantly, investigative journalism is at the heart of justice reform. When journalists investigate thoroughly and produce fact-based reports, those findings can trigger significant policy reforms. That is why the media remains a strategic partner in reshaping the justice system.
