CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) on

the 13th May, 2015 by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria1was at a time the Nigerian Criminal Justice System (CJS) had attracted

so much hatred and criminal contempt from within and outside Nigeria. The

Nigeria Police Force was regarded as incompetent, oppressive and constantly in

violation of human rights; lack of laboratories and forensic experts for criminal

investigations; the Courts were poorly furnished, delayed in dispensing justice

due to missing case files and delayed duplication of case files; cases were set de

novo due to elevation and promotion of High Court Judges to the apex Courts;

and the prisons were over congested. These conditions were in gross violation

of the human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria, 1999 (as amended 2018).2These can be confirmed in the following

cases of; Ariori v Elemo3 where it took twenty years for the case to reach the

Supreme Court and was set de novo. In Edet Effiom v the State4 it took ten

years, while Al-Mustapha Hamzat v The State5where the defendant/appellant

was arrested on October 1998, the matter went up unto appeal in year 2013 and

when it concluded at the Court of Appeal it was exactly 15 years. In recent

1
s1(1) ACJA 2015
2
s33 – 36 CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
3
(1988) 12 SCNJ (PT. 1) 79
4
(1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 373) 507
5
(2013) LPELR – 20995 (CA)
1
times, the likes of the case of Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd), the former National

Security Adviser (NSA) to the former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan led

administration who was alleged of misappropriation of funds $2.1 billion meant

for procurement of firearms to prosecute the Boko Haram insurgency was

arrested and put on detention without trial since 29 th December, 20151 was

released on bail on the 24th December, 2019 after four years of detention.2

One of the reasons why the conditions continued was that the repealed Criminal

Procedure Act in the South and Criminal Procedure Code in the North, which

by far pre-dated the 1999 Constitution were out-dated, slack and out of step

with regards to democratic and modern trends. Consequently, the need to

reform the laws was absolutely imperative. Many other jurisdictions in Africa

that had colonial influence, like South Africa and Ghana, had already gone

ahead with regards to reforming their Criminal Justice System.

This demonstrates that the criminal justice administration in Nigeria needs to be

repositioned in a better standing. This study does not boast of pointing out all

the innovations in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act for lack of time

and space but would highlight only some of the mischiefs engendered by the

repealed legislations. It therefore discusses the concept of criminal justice

system and analyses the various mischiefs existing previously in the Criminal

Justice System which have been addressed by the ACJA including areas such as

1
Buhari Behind my Continued Detention, Dasuki Tells Courts Channels News (February 26 2016)
(https://www.channelstv.com) acceded 6th October 2021
2
Dasuki v the D.G, SSS & Ors (1999) LPELR-49182(CA)
2
arrest, arraignment, bail, plea bargaining and sentencing. The various challenges

to be worn in the effective implementation of the legislation as well as those

present in the Act itself are also examined and recommendations in this regard

were made.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Nigerian Constitution provides that any person charged with a criminal

offence has a right to be presumed innocent and a right of fair hearing in public

within a reasonable time by a law court 1. Yet, in recent times, there have been

many complaints against the institutions in charge of administration of criminal

justice system, in Nigeria2. The Nigerian Criminal Justice System (CJS) had

attracted so much hatred and contempt from within and without Nigeria.

Some of the odium which have been traced to criminal institutions and the law

itself are the courts were poorly furnished, congestion of courts workloads,

delay in dispensation of justice, abuse of the processes and inefficiency by the

practitioners and/or law enforcement personnel, delay issuance of Attorney

General's Copy of legal advice, the prisons were over congested, the Nigeria

Police Force was regarded as inept constantly in violation of human rights.

These conditions were in gross violation of the human rights guaranteed by the

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended 2018). One

of the reasons why the conditions continued was that the repealed Criminal

1
s36(5) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
2
Odunlami v Nigerian Navy (2011) ALLFWLR (Pt.594)83. In determining the appeal, the Court of Appeal
considered the provisions ofs36(5) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
3
Procedure Act in the South and Criminal Procedure Code in the North, which

by far pre-dated the 1999 Constitution, were obsolete, lax and out of step with

regards to democratic and modern trends. Although the provisions of the

repealed Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and the Criminal Procedure Code

(CPC) do not prima facie encourage human rights violation, the loopholes in the

laws and indeed some of the provisions had been exploited to produce human

rights abuses and associated vices in the Criminal Justice System in Nigeria.

These necessitated the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to

make laws to promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions,

speedy dispensation of justice, protection of society from crime and protection

of the rights and interests of the suspect, the defendant and the victim 1for the

peace order and good administration of the Federation or any part thereof to

repealed Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code to collapse

them into one, which emerged as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act

(ACJA) enacted on the 13th May, 2015 to possibly cure the ills and mischiefs

that had afflicted the Nigerian Criminal Justice systems.

It is in the light of these that this study seeks to evaluate the Act particularly its

innovations which effectively guarantees access to justice, rule of law, humane

treatment and dignity of suspect, defendant or victim and its quest to ensure,

promote and make certain the efficient management of criminal justice

institutions, speedy dispensation of justice in Nigeria. As well as its problems

1
s1(1) ACJA, 2015
4
and future prospects. Others are the protection of the society from crime and

protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, the defendant, and the

victim and ensure compliance with the provisions for the realization of those

purposes in the system of administration of criminal justice. This study's high

point centres majorly on the salient provisions like non-custodial sentencing

such as deportations, community service, rehabilitation and correctional centres,

parole, fine and others, which are new to the Nigerian criminal justice system. It

also explores the challenges and prospects of the Administration of Criminal

Justice Act and its attendant effect on the Nigerian justice system.

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study are to examine some of the provisions of the

Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) particularly as it concerns the

congestion of courts with criminal cases; delay in dispensation of justice; stay of

proceedings in criminal cases; remand and holding charge custody; improper

charge and information before a trial court; cases set de novo due to elevation

and promotion of High Court Judges to the apex courts, 1etc. The objectives of

the study are to ascertain the purpose of the law, the impact of the law on the

society, the role of the law and the purpose of the Administration of Criminal

Justice Act as an access to justice, rule of law and protection of human dignity.

In furtherance of the set objectives, all the agencies are required to work

towards improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Criminal Justice

1
s396(7) ACJA, 2015
5
System in bringing offences to justice; to increase public confidence in the

fairness and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System; to increase victim

satisfaction with the police, and victim and witness satisfaction with the

Criminal Justice System.

1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study does not boast of pointing out all the innovations in the

Administration of Criminal Justice Act for lack of time and space but would

highlight only some of the mischief engendered by the repealed legislations.

This study centres mainly on the problems and prospects of Criminal Justice

System in Nigeria, its effects and the attendant changes cum differences

between it and penal laws that were in existence before it. It also seeks to look

into the shortcoming of the Nigerian criminal justice system and prospects and

indeed the way out of the loopholes inherent in the Act.

As noted on that 18this long essay is limited to the positive and negative effects

of administration of criminal justice act in Nigeria, the long essay encountered

some forms of setbacks in the attempt to meet a satisfactory standard in this

project work.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study is very important as it seeks to address some ascertain challenges

bedevilling the administration of criminal justice system in Nigeria and also

going forward to proffer solutions. It views in certain ways a better practice and

procedure for criminal justice delivery under the Administration of Criminal

6
Justice Act 2015. It discusses unidentified problems that law writers may have

not addressed, with a view to proffer solutions. Hence, the study seeks to

enlighten the average Nigerian on their rights, the law enforcement officers like

judges, police officers, prison officers, lawyers, Economic and Financial Crimes

Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC)

officials, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) officials and

every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system on the modalities and the

best practices to attain the ends of justice through the means offer by the

innovations of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study uses observational and analytical methodology to examine the

problems and prospects of Criminal Justice system in Nigeria in relation to

Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. The study depends on the

facts obtained from principal and ancillary sources. Thus, the Constitution of

Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended 2018)1 , the repealed Criminal

Procedure Act2 (CPA) for the South, Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) for the

North (CPC)3, Administration of Justice Committee Act (AJCA)4

Administration Justice Law (AJL)5, Nigerian Police Act,6 the Prisons Act7,

amongst others as principal source. The ancillary source includes relevant

1
CFRN 1999, as amended (2018)
2
CPA 2004
3
CPC 2004
4
AJCA 2015
5
AJL 2011
6
PA Cap P19 LFN 2004
7
PA Cap P29 LFN 2004
7
materials on the internet, books, essays, journals and articles published on the

subject matter together with the opinions of courts in judicial decisions 1. During

the research, some law firms and police stations were visited to elicit

information directly from lawyers and police officers. This study is purely

qualitative research; hence it does not infringe human right nor in breach of

ethical conducts, i.e., piracy.

1.7 LITERATURE REVIEW

The Criminal Justice system is “an apparatus the society uses to enforce the

standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community”. 2 It is

the sum total of society’s activities to defend itself against the actions it

describes as criminal.3 It also refers to that integral fusion of machineries of

government that aim to enforce law and redress crime. The machineries are the

law enforcement agents which control and prevent crime. These include the

Police,4 the Chief Law Officer/Prosecutor5, Judiciary6 and Prisons services.7

In view of Dambazau: “Administration of Criminal Justice is both a legal

process and an academic discipline.8 That as a legal process; “it involves the

procedure of processing the person accused of committing crime from arrest to

the final disposal of the case”. Oluwatoy in Doherty followed this line of
1
Ariori v Elemo (1988) 12 SCNJ (PT. 1) 79, In Edet Effiom v the State (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 373) 507 and Al-
MustaphaHamzat v The State (2013) LPELR – 20995 (CA)
2
The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a
Free Society (United States Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., February, 1967), p.7
3
F. Adler, G.O.W. Mueller & W.S. Laufer, Criminal Justice: An Introduction (2nd Ed, McGraw Hill Higher
Education, 2000) p.7
4
s214 CFRN 1999, as amended (2018)
5
s174 & 211 CFRN 1999, as amended (2018)
6
s6 CFRN 1999, as amended (2018)
7
s1Prisons Act, Cap. P. 29, L F N 2004
8
Dambazau, A.B. op. cit. p. 174
8
reasoning in her work before the former author and holds that criminal

procedure is, therefore, the method laid down by law for the bringing of a

person who is alleged to have committed a crime before a court for trial. It also

deals with the method to be adopted by the court of trial, the powers of the court

of trial, the right of appeal of a person convicted of a crime and the right of the

proceedings _the prosecutor.” Finally, it deals with the rules governing the

procedure in the appellate courts.1

Adebayo A. M. says that the Criminal Justice System is an “institution and

practices of Government whose main focus is to mitigate and deter crime,

uphold social control and sanction individuals who violate the set laws of a

specific state with rehabilitation and criminal penalties”. 2 B. Owasanoye and C.

Ani have described the relationship between the functionaries in the Criminal

Justice System as a “symbiotic relationship”. 3 Any defect at any point frustrates

the whole system which has a single identity. 4 It therefore becomes obvious that

the CJS is a machinery of government whose aim is to prevent crime by

punishing same.

In Nigeria, the criminal justice system is therefore the whole gamut of criminal

laws (substantive and adjectival), the institutions which includes the Nigeria

Police Force, the Attorney-General and Minister/Commissioner for Justice

including prosecuting law officers, the Judiciary and the Nigeria Prison Service.
1
Doherty, O. op. cit. p.2
2
A.M Adebayo, Administration of Criminal Justices System in Nigeria, (Lagos: Princeton Publishing Co, 2012), p.2.
3
B. Owasanoye& C. Ani, Improving Case Management Coordination Amongst the Police, Prosecution and Court<http://www.nials-
nigeria.org/journals/Bolaji%20Owasanoye%20%20and%20chinyere.pdf> accessed 25th October 2021
4
H. Okoeguale, Criminal Justice in Nigeria: The Need for Administrative Dexterity(2015) 1 ABUAD Journal of Public and
International Law (AJPIL), p. 226- 227; s10(1)(i) CPA
9
All these are required to work hand in hand to address crime. In this study, I am

more concerned with the institutions aforementioned as well as the adjectival

aspect of the criminal law.1

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act,(ACJA) 2015 which was signed

into law on the 13thMay 2015 is one of the Nigeria’s newest legislations that has

introduced new mechanisms in the Nigeria’s criminal justice framework. The

purpose of this Act is to ensure that the system of administration of criminal

justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice

institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the society from crime

and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, the defendant, and the

victim.2

This study aims to appraise the extent to which the Administration of Criminal

Justice Act meets this purpose by its provisions, and it highlights the role which

proper implementation will play to achieve the goals of the Act.

1.8 SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTERS

The study titled: “An Examination of Problems and Prospects of Nigerian

Criminal Justice System vis-a-vis the Administration of Criminal Justice Act,

2015” comprises five (5) chapters. The first chapter (Chapter One) is the

general introduction to the study. The second chapter (Chapter Two) is

dedicated to some salient provisions and the general overview of the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System in relation to the Administration of Criminal Justice

1
Olubiyi, I. A., and Okoeguale, H. E.,The Nigerian Criminal Justice System: Prospects and Challenges of the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act 2015 (AFJCLJ)
2
s1(1) AJCA, 2015
10
Act (2015). The third chapter (Chapter Three) is concerned with the problems

and prospects of the Criminal Justice System in Nigeria and the innovations

brought by the Act. The fourth chapter (Chapter Four) continuation of

discussions on challenges, constraints and the innovations introduced in the new

Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015). 1The fifth chapter (Chapter Five)

detailed the long essays’ summary, conclusion, and recommendations.

1
s270 AJCA, 2015
11
 CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION/HISTORICALDEVELOPMENT

2.1. THE ACT AT A GLANCE

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), therefore, is an outcome of

such a task enacted, after a considerable study of the problems associated with

the Nigerian criminal justice system. The Act is to ensure that the system of

administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of

criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the

society from crime and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, the

defendant, and the victim1 to tackle those predicaments and conflicts resulting

from criminal deviance in the society, and to make the society a worthy place

for human existence2.

The Act seeks to ensure speedy dispensation or trial of criminal cases and avoid

various delays that bedevilled criminal trials in the past. The law provides that

an application for stay of proceedings in a criminal matter shall not be

entertained.3 This puts to an end to the delay in trial due to interlocutory

applications to stay proceedings pending appeal on preliminary matters even

though the substantive suit has not been tried or heard. Trial is also to proceed

from day-to-day till the conclusion of the trial. 4 Where this is impracticable, the

parties shall be entitled to only five adjournments each and the interval between

1
s1 ACJA, 2015
2
Akamba J. Agbor, Problems and Prospects of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, being a long essay submitted to
Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan, 2016 sourced from www.academia.com on 25th October, 2021
3
s306 ACJA, 2015
4
s396(3) ACJA, 2015
12
each adjournment shall not exceed 14 working days.1 Where the trial is still not

concluded, the interval for adjournments will be reduced to seven days. Still in

the spirit of speedy trial, information filed are to be assigned to courts by the

Chief Judge within fifteen working days of it filling 2and the Judge in turn, is to

issue notice of trial within ten working days of the assignment of the

information to his court.3 Also, any objection to the validity of the charge or

information raised by the defendant shall only be considered along with the

substantive issues and a ruling thereon made at the time of delivery of

judgment.4

2.2. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT

2.2.1 STRUCTURE AND APPLICATION

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 is divided into 49

parts with 495 sections and with 4 Schedules, its provisions is a fusion of the

Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) for the Southern Nigeria, the Criminal

Procedure Code (CPC) for the Northern Nigeria and the Administration of

Criminal Justice Law (ACJL). It is important to mention at this point that unlike

the CPA and the CPC, the ACJA adopts the more acceptable trend used in both

the Evidence Act, 2011, and the ACJL, wherein persons standing trial for

criminal offences are not described as “accused persons”, but as “defendants”.

1
Ibid, s396(4)
2
Ibid, s382(1)
3
Ibid, s382(2)
4
Ibid, s396(2)
13
The provisions of the ACJA apply to criminal trials for offences established by

an Act of the National Assembly and other offences punishable in the Federal

Capital Territory, Abuja.1 Its provisions, however, do not apply to a Court

Martial.2 The ACJA repeals the Criminal Procedure Act,3 Criminal Procedure

(Northern States) Act,4 and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.5 The

repeal section appears rather confusing as it relates to the CPA. At first sight, it

appears the CPA loses its existence given the ACJA. The CPA is the parent

legislation that governs criminal justice administration in the Magistrates’ and

High Courts of the 16 Southern states of Nigeria as the Criminal Procedure

Laws of these states with very minimal amendments. As such, if the repeal

section of the ACJA is given a wide interpretation, it may be construed as

though the ACJA applies to all courts in the 16 Southern states of Nigeria.

However, that is not so. For one thing, Section 2(1) of the ACJA 6 limits the

application of the Act to “criminal trials for offences established by an Act of

the National Assembly and other offences punishable in the Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja.” Most Acts of the National Assembly establishing offences

vest exclusive jurisdiction over such offences on the Federal High Court. 7

Although offences created by the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions)

1
s2(1) ACJA, 2015
2
s2(2) ACJA, 2015
3
CAP C41, LFN 2004
4
CAP C42, LFN 2004
5
CAP A3, LFN 2004
6
Supra
7
s20, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011, and Section 26, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, CAP N30, LFN 2004, vest
exclusive jurisdiction over offences in the respective Acts on the Federal High Court.
14
Act1 are triable in the High Court of the State concerned, 2 this Act of the

National Assembly is only an exception, and not the general rule. It is thus

submitted that Section 2(1) of the ACJA 3 gives the Act a Federal application.

More so, Section 494 of the ACJA explains “court” in the Act to include

Federal Courts, the Magistrates’ Court and Federal Capital Territory Area

Courts presided over by legal practitioners. Although by the use of the word

“include”, the list is not exhaustive, it is certain that such would not necessarily

include State High Courts or Magistrates’ Courts in the various Southern States.

This submission is right in the light of the provision in Section 490 of the ACJA

which vests only on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court or of the Federal

Capital Territory or the President of the National Industrial Court the power to

make rules of court generally for carrying into effect the purposes of the ACJA.

The above authorities cannot make rules which State High Courts or

Magistrates’ Courts will be subject to. Thus, the ACJA applies only to courts

subject to the supervision of the above authorities as the case may be, namely,

the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, the High Court of the

FCT, the Magistrates’ Court of the FCT, and the Area Courts of the FCT.

Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Act4 is repealed as regards its application to

Federal Courts. It is noteworthy that by virtue of Section 32(1) of the Federal

High Court Act,5 the CPA applied in the Federal High Court wherever the Court
1
CAP R11, LFN 2004
2
Ibid, S9
3
s2(1) ACJA, 2015
4
CAP C41, LFN 2004
5
CAP F12, LFN 2004
15
may be sitting. However, this provision has lost its life given Section 2(1) of the

ACJA which makes the ACJA applicable to the Federal High Court. The

Criminal Procedure Laws of the various Southern states are still extant

notwithstanding the fact that they are albeit domesticated versions of the CPA.

2.2.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

MONITORING COMMITTEE

The ACJA establishes the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring

Committee (the Committee).1 The Committee comprises nine members with the

Chief Judge of the FCT as the Chairman. By virtue of Section 470 of the ACJA,

the Committee has the responsibility of ensuring effective and efficient

application of the Act by the relevant agencies. In doing this, the Committee

shall among other things ensure that criminal matters are speedily dealt with;

congestion of criminal cases in courts is drastically reduced; congestion in

prisons is reduced to the barest minimum; and persons awaiting trial are, as far

as possible, not detained in prison custody. Section 471 of the ACJA establishes

a secretariat for the Committee, Section 472 of the ACJA establishes a fund for

the Committee, and Section 476 of the ACJA provides for proceedings and

quorum of the Committee. By this establishment, the ACJA becomes the first

legislation in the Nigerian administration of criminal justice framework to

establish a body charged with the responsibility of ensuring effective

application of the Act.

1
s469 ACJA, 2015
16
2.2.3 TRIAL OF CORPORATION

This is another interesting feature of the ACJA, although it does not suffice as

an innovation as the ACJL had already blazed that trail. 1 The background of

these provisions is that corporations are legal entities which can sue or be sued.

More so, in many legislations including the Companies and Allied Matters Act

(CAMA), 20202 corporations are liable for a plethora of offences. Thus, both

the ACJA and the ACJL make provisions for the trial of a corporation with its

representative appearing on its behalf. “Corporation” in the ACJA means

anybody corporate, incorporated in Nigeria or elsewhere. 3 Section 478 of the

ACJA provides that a corporation can take its plea to a criminal charge or

information either orally or in writing through its representative. However,

when the corporation does not appear or if it appears, fails to enter any plea, the

court shall order a plea of not guilty to be entered and the trial shall proceed

accordingly.4 More so, any requirement of the ACJA that says anything must be

done in the presence of the defendant, or shall be read or said or explained to

the defendant, shall be construed as a requirement that, that thing shall be done

in the presence of the representative or read or said or explained to the

representative.5 The ACJA, however, makes extra provisions than the ACJL as

regards trial by corporations. For instance, Section 481 of the ACJA provides

for powers of a representative. More so, Section 484 of the ACJA expressly

1
Pt27, s357-360, ACJL (Repeal and Re-enactment) of Lagos State, 2011
2
s42 CAMA, 2020
3
s477 ACJA, 2015; s371 ACJL (Repeal and Re-enactment) Lagos State, 2011
4
s357 ACJL (Repeal and Re-enactment) Lagos State, 2011
5
s482 ACJA, 2015; s358 ACJL (Repeal and Re-enactment) Lagos State, 2011
17
provides for application of the provisions of the Act to a corporation as they

apply to an adult. The same section also expressly provides that a corporation

may be charged jointly and tried with an individual for any offence.

2.3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE ACT

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act is an administrative or a procedural

law that is expected to command compliance on its provisions. The question

most likely now is not what necessitated its enactment; reasons have been

adduced aplenty, particularly to cure the ills enumerated in the dispensation of

criminal justice in Nigeria. The most effective function, however, will be how

to achieve its goals; to guarantee and protect interests of the suspects,

defendants and victims. This is ascertainable from its preoccupation. In this

manner, the ACJA constricts its interests into three obvious objectives namely,

access to justice, rule of law or equality and preservation of human dignity

under the law.1

This means scrupulous application of the ACJA should follow the spirit and

letter of Constitution; even if a person is caught in flagrante delicto (i.e. red

handed), which ordinarily challenges the concept of ‘presumption of innocence’

in the mind of an ordinary man who has seen the fellow actually. The concern

here is that access to justice should be made available to all, guided by rule of

law and human dignity under the law preserve. 2 This should be so in order to

1
Akamba J. Agbor, Problems and Prospects of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, being a long essay submitted to
Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan, 2016 sourced from www.academia.com accessed on 25th October 2021
2
Ibid
18
remedy these problems which necessitated its existence and, for a holistic

compliance to achieve its purpose.1

2.3.1. THE ACT AS AN ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Access to justice is a right and a fundamental privilege available to all for the

protection of interests. According to Wahab Shittu, access to justice will not

mean just access to lawyers and courts. It is much broader than this as it

encompasses a recognition that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law

and that whatever rights we seek to protect are meaningless unless those rights

can be enforced with minimal constraints to the aggrieved persons and under

circumstances ensuring that all manner of people are treated fairly according to

the law and are able to get appropriate redress in circumstances when they are

treated unfairly.2 In this context, there is no access to justice where citizens

especially the marginalized groups not only conceive the system as frightening,

or alien or in circumstances where citizens have no lawyers either because of

inadequate resources to access them, or where individuals lack access to

information or knowledge of their rights or where the system is fundamentally

weak in delivering justice to the citizens.3

Altogether, access to justice has been construed to suggest severally or one of

the followings: a right to appear in court or the method or attitude on the path to

fairness; the way of administering law according to what is due or deserved.

1
ss 1&2 ACJA, 2015
2
Ibid
3
Wahab Shittu (2015); What’s wrong with Administration of Criminal Justice Act? In The Nation Newspaper; August 25, 2015. Retrieved
from http://thenationonlineng.net/whats-wrong-with-administration-of-criminaljusticeact-2/ accessed on 26th October,2021
19
However, as it concerns criminal justice, access to justice may well mean (i) the

right of the suspect, victim, defendant and society to come to court and get what

is appropriately justified, (ii) the ideology that guides the management of

criminal justice by having cases concluded appropriately in court of law. By

means of this, the aforementioned stands fathomable as justice pays everyman

for his demeanours.1

2.4. THE RIGHT TO APPEAR IN COURT OF LAW

The question then is not whether access to justice is a natural right or any

privilege at all, but to what relevance it is to a suspect, defendant or a victim

who in this instance may be a serial killer or corrupt government official and if

so, how safe is the criminal justice system? 2 At hand is the constitutional

provision that every time any person is indicted of committing a criminal

offence, he shall, remain eligible to an impartial inquiry in public within a

judicious interval in a court tribunal, except the charge is withdrawn, 3 he shall

be acknowledged to stand blameless in anticipation of being proven guilty.4

Basically, the interests of suspect or defendant or victim are those accepted and

provided to him by law, especially the Constitution. The foremost is

presumption of innocence, followed by fair hearing. These are the conundrum

of the right of the suspect or defendant. For whatever reason and however

anybody may feel, the law is that a suspect should be presumed innocent

1
Ibid
2
Ibid
3
s36(4) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
4
Ibid (5)
20
whether or not he was caught in flagrante delicto. Deriving from this, the law

enforcement has a responsibility which though discretionary, to bring a suspect

before a court of law. If such duty has been waived, then the suspect should be

left off the hook.1

2.4.1. ADVOCACY FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT MEET THE EXPENSE OF IT

In Nigeria, the Legal Aid Council was established as a national agency 2 and

expected to maintain offices in all the states of the federation. Over four

decades, precisely between 1976 and 2016, the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria is

still crawling and largely ineffective because of inadequate funding, lack of

personnel, lack of publicity and inadequate information on access to justice,

delay in treating case files by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), delay in

investigating crimes by the police, prison congestion, delays in the

administration of justice, lack of empowerment of the legal aid council to

provide legal aid services in respect of certain categories of persons and matters

and the scope of eligibility for legal aid is not wide enough.3

1
Akamba J. Agbor op. cit.
2
A.B. Mahmoud, (1998); Institutional Framework and the Constraints in Criminal Justice Administration; in Administration of criminal
Justice and Human Rights in Nigeria, Muhammed Tabiu ed. (1998), National Human Rights Commission Publication, pp. 13-15
3
Ijeoma Okoronkwo, The Lawyer's Chronicle cited by Legal Aid Council available at http://www.legalaidcouncil.gov.ng/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=143%3Alegal-aidinnigeria&catid=43%3Alatest-news&Itemid=65retrieved on 24/08/2016
21
2.4.2. THE ACT AS RULE OF LAW

The ACJA is the standard rule for criminal proceedings. In it procedures, it is

provided that “the courts, law enforcement agencies and other agencies of

criminal justice administration shall ensure compliance with the provisions of

this Act for the realization of its purposes 1 as the provisions of this Act shall

apply to criminal trials for offences established by an Act of the and other

offences punishable in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and also that this

Act shall apply to all criminal trials and proceedings unless express provision is

made in respect of any particular court or form of trial or proceeding.”2

2.4.3 IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS AND RULE OF LAW IN THE ACT

Law remains a construction of enforceable commands fundamental to the

society and promulgated by a body like the government. Understandably it is

connected to ideals, which denote, a universal logic, in a system of politically

conscious thoughts.3 In this vein, ideologies, just as legal systems, are spread

through the political spectrum. Moreover, legal systems are ideologies which

may be liberal, fascist, communist, and so on, as have been accepted as the

manifestation of a political system. If this is so, one may not be wrong to

presume that the practice and doings of law are designed by people's political

dogmas, and given the impression that law originate from ideology in an honest

and indisputable manner.

1
s1(2) ACJA, 2015
2
ss 2(1) & S.86 ACJA, 2015
3
Sypnowich, C. (2004), "Law and Ideology", The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
URL =available at <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/law-ideology/>. Retrieved on 26/08/2021
22
2.5. PROTECTION OF HUMAN DIGNITY

Section 8 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) impulses

respect for the dignity of person arresting, prohibiting torture, cruelty, inhuman

or degrading treatment.1 This reiterates the right of the arrested suspect to

dignity of his person as provided for by Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of

the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended 2018). More so, the ACJA

expressly provides that a suspect shall not be arrested merely on a civil wrong

or breach of contract,2 thus forestalling the situation wherein complainants use

the police to recover debts owed them or enforce agreements.

Another interesting provision in the ACJA is that in Section 14 thereof, which

provides that an arrested suspect shall be taken immediately to police station

and shall be given reasonable facilities for obtaining legal advice, access to

communication for taking steps to furnish bail, and otherwise making

arrangements for his defence or release. More so, the ACJA provides that a

Chief Magistrate or any Magistrate designated by the Chief Judge for that

purpose shall, at least every month, visit police stations or other detention

centres within his territorial jurisdiction other than the prison.3 In any of such

visits, the Magistrate has power to call for and inspect the record of arrests,

direct the arraignment of the suspect, or grant bail if the offence is within the

1
AO Alubo, Criminal Procedure Law in Nigeria (Momo Expressions Ltd, 2016) at p99
2
s8(2) ACJA, 2015
3
s34 ACJA, 2015
23
Magistrate’s jurisdiction.4 All these provisions are geared towards protecting the

rights of the arrested suspects.

4
Ibid
24
 CHAPTER THREE

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

3.1. UNLAWFUL ARREST

Arrest has been defined by the House of Lords in the case of Holgate

Mohammed v Duke1 as a continuing act which starts with the arrester taking a

person into custody, it continues until the person restrained is either released

from custody or having been brought before a Magistrate is remanded in

custody by the judicial act of the Magistrate. Furthermore, it was stated that the

lawful arrest does not merely mean taking a person into custody; the person

arrested must know at the time he is being arrested or very soon thereafter

(when reasonably practicable) the reason of his arrest.2

Already, before the order and marking into law of the ACJA 2015, the police

under Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), pertinent toward the

southern piece of Nigeria, could capture an individual without a warrant if the

individual has no apparent methods for sustenance and can't give an acceptable

record of their exercises. This arrangement, in the surviving CPA prompted the

police and other law requirement offices capturing family members and

companions of supposed presumes when they can't be connected to an offense.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 has disallowed this. Section

2-7 of the ACJA obviously has set out the techniques to be followed when

1
Vol. 79 Cr. App. Report 120
2
Christie v. Leachinsky (1947) A.C. 573, Loveland Construction Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights
https:/learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_232.htm accessed 5th October, 2021
25
arrests are carried out by the police.1 The particular interest is section 7 of the

ACJA, 2015. “a person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect.”

The ACJA provides that a warrant of arrest can only be issued in the first

instance upon complaint on oath or in writing by the complainant himself or by

a material witness.2 There seems to be confusion as to which authority can issue

a warrant of arrest in the ACJA. While Section 36(c) of the ACJA provides for

signing of a warrant of arrest by the Judge or Magistrate by whom it is issued,

Section 41 of the ACJA in providing for public summons for an absconding

suspect, make provisions for issuance of a warrant of arrest by any court or

Justice of the Peace. The former provision is exactly the same with those of the

CPA and ACJL,3 while the latter is similar to the provision of the CPC. 4 The

draftsman of the ACJA in a bid to fuse the three jurisdictions possibly did not

notice that slight discrepancy on the authorities by whom a warrant of arrest can

be issued in the other legislations.

To this end, it is right to conclude that by virtue of the above provisions, the

ACJA provides for issuance of a warrant of arrest by a Judge, Magistrate, or

Justice of the Peace. There is no difference between the form and requisites of a

warrant of arrest as provided in the ACJA and as provided in the CPA and

ACJL.5 Similarities also exist among the ACJA, CPA, and ACJL in the

1
s122 ACJA, 2015
2
s37 ACJA, 2015
3
s22(1) CPA CAP C41, LFN 2004, and s22(1), ACJL (Repeal and Reenactment) Law of Lagos State, 2011
4
s67(1) CPC
5
s36 ACJA, 2015; s22 CPA, CAP C41, LFN 2004, and s22 ACJL, (Repeal and Reenactment) Law of Lagos State, 2011
26
provisions for the lifespan of a warrant of arrest, 1execution of warrant of arrest,2

and execution of a warrant of arrest outside the division or district issuing the

warrant.3

The ACJA does not make provisions for execution of a warrant of arrest outside

the state of issue. As regards the provision for the power to arrest on warrant but

without the warrant, the ACJA is only similar to the CPA in providing that in

such circumstance, the warrant shall, on the demand of the suspect, be shown to

him as soon as practicable after his arrest.4 The ACJL provides for showing the

warrant to the suspect within 24 hours after his arrest. 5 As stated earlier, the

ACJA makes similar provisions with the CPC as regards the issuance of public

summons for a suspect absconding from arrest.6 Differences, however, exist

between the legislations in the methods of publishing a public summons. The

ACJA excludes reading of the public summons in some conspicuous place in

the town or village in which the suspect resides and includes publication in a

newspaper that enjoys wide circulation or circulated in any other medium as

may be appropriate.7

3.2. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF SUSPECT

The ACJA made elaborate provisions for the protection of constitutional rights

of citizens who are arrested by virtue of its provisions. For example, Section 6
1
s39 ACJA, 2015; s25(2) CPA, CAP C41, LFN 2004; s25(2) ACJL (Repeal and Reenactment) Law of Lagos State, 2011
2
s43 ACJA, 2015; s28 CPA, CAP C41, LFN 2004; s27 ACJL (Repeal and Reenactment) Law of Lagos State, 2011
3
s46 ACJA, 2015; S.31 CPA, CAP C41, LFN 2004; s30 ACJL (Repeal and Reenactment) Law of Lagos State, 2011
4
s44 ACJA, 2015; s29 CPA, CAP C41, LFN 2004
5
s28 ACJL (Repeal and Reenactment) Law of Lagos State, 2011
6
s41 ACJA, 2015; s67(1) CPC
7
s42 ACJA, 2015; s67(2) CPC
27
of the ACJA provides for notification of cause of arrest and rights of the

suspect. The rights which the police officer shall notify the suspect by virtue of

this section are the rights to remain silent or avoid answering any question or

making, endorsing, or writing any statement until after consultation with a legal

practitioner or any other person of his own choice; and his rights to free legal

representation by the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria where applicable. While one

may argue that this Section presents no innovation as it is similar to Section 3 of

the ACJL, 2015 the proviso to Section 6 of the ACJA, 2015 presents the

innovation in its proviso thus: “Provided the authority having custody of the

suspect shall have the responsibility of notifying the next of kin or relative of the

suspect of the arrest at no cost to the suspect.”

This proviso adequately takes care of that ugly situation wherein suspects rot

away in detention without kith or kin knowing of his or her whereabouts. The

provision that the notification to the next of kin or relative shall be at no cost to

the suspect is certainly a laudable provision. Just as the ACJL, the ACJA

expressly prohibits arrest in lieu.48 Going further than all other legislations of

same kind, the ACJA made excellent provisions for humane treatment of the

arrested suspect.

This reiterates the right of the arrested suspect to dignity of his person as

provided for by Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria (as amended). More so, the ACJA expressly provides that a suspect

28
shall not be arrested merely on a civil wrong or breach of contract, 1 thus

forestalling the situation wherein complainants use the police to recover debts

owed them or enforce agreements. Yet another interesting provision in the

ACJA is that in Section 14 thereof, which provides that an arrested suspect shall

be taken immediately to a police station and shall be given reasonable facilities

for obtaining legal advice, access to communication for taking steps to furnish

bail, and otherwise making arrangements for his defence or release.

More so, the ACJA provides that a Chief Magistrate or any Magistrate

designated by the Chief Judge for that purpose shall, at least every month, visit

police stations or other detention centres within his territorial jurisdiction other

than the prison.2 In any of such visits, the Magistrate has power to call for and

inspect the record of arrests, direct the arraignment of the suspect, or grant bail

if the offence is within the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. 3 All these provisions are

geared towards protecting the rights of the arrested suspects.

3.3. ARRAIGNMENT IN COURT WITHIN REASONABLE TIME

Arraignment is the process whereby a person suspected to have committed an

offence is confronted/accused with a formal charge containing the offence he is

alleged to have committed in a court of competent jurisdiction, whereupon the

accused person is required to make a plea of guilty or not guilty. Where the

defendant pleads guilty to a charge which does not attract the capital

1
s8(2) ACJA, 2015
2
s34 ACJA, 2015
3
Ibid
29
punishment, the presiding judge satisfies himself that the defendant understands

the charges, convicts and sentences him accordingly.1 Where the charge brought

upon the defendant attracts the capital punishment, a plea of “not guilty” is

entered for him even if he pleads guilty.2 In any case, where a defendant pleads

not guilty, he is considered to have put himself to trial. 3 Needless to say

therefore, that arraignment begins the trial of a defendant, which can be done

only in a court having jurisdiction; where there is no arraignment, trial cannot

commence.

In the case of Shola Abu and 349 ors v C.O.P, Lagos State 4 the court espoused

the principle thus:

to demonstrate that a citizen is detained pending being brought

before a court of law upon reasonable suspicion of a criminal

offence, those who claim to have reasonably suspected him of

the offence and apprehended him for that reason must

demonstrate the reasonableness of their suspicion by arraigning

him before a court of competent jurisdiction, where the

reasonableness thereof will be tested within a reasonable time.

The above is a re-statement of the constitutional provision which requires a

detainee to be brought before a court of law within a reasonable time for the

1
s274(2) ACJA, 2015
2
s274(3) ACJA, 2015
3
ss187 & 188 CPC, s271 CPA, s273 ACJA, 2015
4
(Unreported Suit No IKD/M/18 2003, ruling delivered on 28/07/2004 at the Lagos State High Court, Ikorodu Division)
30
detainee to stand his trial.1 Where arraignment is not done within a reasonable

time and the suspect is kept in detention, his continual pre-trial detention

constitutes a violation of his right to personal liberty. In stating the ills of pre-

trial detention, the Court stated in the case of Hartage v Hendrick2 as follows:

the imprisonment of an accused person prior to the

determination of guilt is a rather awesome thing: it costs tax

payers tremendous sums of money; it deprives the affected

individual of his most precious freedom and liberty; it deprives

him of the ability to support himself and his family, it quite

possibly costs him his job, it restricts his ability to participate in

his own defence, it subjects him to the dehumanization of prison,

it separates him from his family and without trial it casts over

him the aura of criminality and guilt.

The ACJA gives a provision that a suspect will be brought to court within a

reasonable time or discharged on bail, regardless of whether restrictively or

unconditionally. This arrangement is in consonance with the arrangement of the

constitution, which up to this point characterized a reasonable time to mean 24

hours or potentially 48 hours, individually, contingent upon the range

of the court from the confinement centre.3

1
s35(4) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
2
Pa. 584 at 601(1970)
3
s35(5) (a) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
31
3.4. THE INNOVATIONS BROUGHT BY THE ACT

3.4.1. ESTABLISHMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

MONITORING COMMITTEE
In considering the role of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring

Committee (ACJMC), it is important to consider section 470 of the ACJA

which succinctly spells out the role of the ACJMC in the Administration of

Criminal Justice in Nigeria.

Section 470 ACJA provides as follows:

(1) The Committee shall be charged with the responsibility of ensuring effective

and efficient application of this Act by the relevant agencies.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the

Committee shall ensure that:

(a) criminal matters are speedily dealt with;

(b) congestion of criminal cases in courts is drastically reduced;

(c) congestion in prisons is reduced to the barest minimum;

(d) persons awaiting trial are, as far as possible, not detained in prison custody;

(e) the relationship between the organs charged with the responsibility for all

aspects of the administration of justice is cordial and there exists maximum co-

operation amongst the organs in the administration of justice in Nigeria;

(f) collate, analyse and publish information in relation to the administration of

criminal justice sector in Nigeria; and Functions of the committee.

32
(g) submit quarterly report to the Chief Justice of Nigeria to keep him abreast of

developments towards improved criminal justice delivery and for necessary

action; and

(h) carry out such other activities as are necessary for the effective and efficient

administration of criminal justice.

Flowing from the above, it is clear that the ACJMC is mandated to ensure the

effective and efficient application of the entire ACJA. Thus, every provision of

the ACJA becomes an implementation priority for the ACJMC.

With specific regards to what the ACJMC has done to ensure that each of the

item contained under section 470 are achieved.

In order to ensure that criminal matters are speedily dealt with, the ACJMC has

begun full engagements with all the stakeholders who hold key responsibilities

to ensure that criminal matters are speedily dealt with. These engagements have

been across a broad spectrum of stakeholders to include; Heads of Court, Judges

and Magistrates, Registrars, Clarks, Prosecutors, Defense Counsel, Correctional

Service etc.

From these engagements, the ACJMC was able to ascertain what kind of

support was needed by each stakeholder to make them effective and efficient in

the discharge of their duties. The needs ascertained ranges from budgetary

needs, to technical needs and even capacity needs. These needs were indeed

accessed as germane an in order to immediately address these needs, the

ACJMC has partnered with support organizations and development partners

33
including the European Union funded Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption

(ROLAC), CLEEN Foundation, Partners West Africa Nigeria etc.

These support organizations have been able to meet capacity building needs by

organizing several trainings, seminars and retreats where the participants are

trained on specific provisions relating to speedy trial thus their capacity

becomes enlarged to accommodate the new set of skills required of them to

comply with the key speedy trial provisions.

With regards to infrastructure support for speedy trial, the ACJMC with the

support of and in collaboration with ROLAC, has been able to set-up two state-

of-the-art Statement Taking/Interview rooms in the Wuse Police Division and

also in the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) Facility. These Statement

Taking/Interview rooms serve to record by audio visual means the Statement

Taking/Interview process for inmates. This means that once a statement is

obtained from a suspect and questions arise as to the voluntariness or otherwise

of such statement, the recording from these rooms would be referred to

immediately and used as evidence to determine if the statements were

voluntarily made or made by virtue of duress, force or compulsion. This is no

doubt shortens largely the length of trial because not only would the need for

trial-within-trial be dispensed with, it would also shorten the length of the main

trial as the admission or otherwise of guilt by the accused can be tendered in

evidence before the court and also considered by the court in arriving at its

conclusion in the trial.

34
Beyond these kinds of engagement and interventions, the ACJMC is also

exploring the possibility of advocating for the adoption of case management in

all criminal trials. This would greatly organise the trial process and bring a level

of predictability to the time-span of a trial. This is still a work in progress but

hopefully very soon, massive gains would be made in this regard in the FCT

and around the Federation.

There are also plans by the ACJMC to seek for the full implementation of

sections 306, 383, and 396 of the ACJA. These sections deal with speed trial

and when fully implemented, the trial process would undoubtedly be fast and

effective. The ACJMC has kick-started its campaign for full implementation of

these key provisions by creating awareness, holding regular consultation

meetings with stakeholders as well as relentless advocacy especially at the

policy level. It is hoped that in the not-too-distant future, these sections would

be fully implemented.1

3.4.2. MANDATORY INVENTORY OF PROPERTY

Another achievement accomplished by the Administration of Criminal Justice

Act, 2015 (ACJA) concerns the compulsory recording of the inventory of

property, which the Act presents.2 This arrangement makes it compulsory for a

law implementation official to take inventory or properties recuperated from

suspects and this must be marked by the cop and the suspect. The Act further

1
Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC), The Role of ACJMC (https://acjmcng.org/2020/12/29/the-role-of-
acjmc/#:~:text=The%20Administration%20of%20Criminal%20Justice,470%20of%20the%20same%20Act. Accessed 16th November, 2021.
2
s10(1) ACJA, 2015
35
gives that where a suspect won't sign the inventory, such shall not invalidate the

inventory as copies will also be given to him or her, as well as to his legal

practitioner or such other person as he may direct. 1 One incredible development

deserving of note here under Section 10 of the Act, is that where the suspect

isn't charged however is discharged on the ground that there is no adequate or

sufficient reason to charge him, any property taken from the person in question

will be returned, given the property isn't associated with or equivalent to the

returns of wrongdoing.2

3.4.3. RECORDING OF ARREST AND CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

In recording the declaration of a supposed suspect, the Administration of

Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) in setting down techniques, calls for

mandatory record of individual data of a captured individual. 3 The conclusion of

such recording should be at a reasonable time not exceeding 48 hours 4; where a

suspect volunteers to make a confessional statement, such enunciation will be

recorded electronically and will be recorded as a hard copy or might be

electronically recorded on a retrievable video minimal plate or such other

various media implies.5 Section 15(5) of the Act provide that an oral confession

of arrested suspect shall be admissible in evidence.

1
s10(2) ACJA, 2015
2
Ibid s10(7)
3
Ibid s15(1)
4
Ibid s15(2)
5
Ibid s15(4)
36
The voluntary confessional statement of a defendant to the police in the course

of investigation in to crime is relevant and admissible in evidence in trial.6

3.4.4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIMINAL REGISTRY

Establishment of a Police Central Criminal Records Registry, 2 which is to be

situated in all the Police Commands of the 36 states and the Force Headquarters,

Abuja. Likewise, all states, including the Federal Capital Territory, are to

guarantee that the choices of the courts in every criminal preliminary shall

ensure that the decisions of the court in all criminal trial are transmitted to the

Central Criminal Records Registry within 30 days after the delivery of

judgment.3

3.4.5. MONTHLY REPORT BY POLICE TO SUPERVISING MAGISTRATES

Section 33(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) aides

the police to dispatch a report on the last working day of every month to the

nearest judge on the occasions of all suspects caught with or without warrant

inside the requirement of their specific stations or organizations, whether or not

the suspect has been admitted to bail or not. Upon receipt, the official is to

propel the report to the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring

Committee.4 The Committee will examine the report and advice the Attorney

General of the alliance on the patterns of capture, bail and related issues. The Attorney

General of the Federation, upon demand, will likewise make the report accessible to the

6
s29(1) EA, 2011
2
s16(1) ACJA, 2015
3
Ibid s16(3)
4
s33(3) ACJA, 2015
37
National Human Rights Commission, the Legal Aid Council and Non-Governmental

Organizations.

3.4.6. MONTHLY INSPECTION OF POLICE STATIONS AND OTHER

DETENTION CENTERS

As provided under Section 34 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA),

the Chief Judge is to assign the central officer or some other officer to complete, on a month

to month premise, a visit to police headquarters and other confinement places. 1 The reason

for the visit is to call for and review the record of captures, direct the arraignment of suspects,

or where bail has been rejected, award bail to any suspect where appropriate. 2 The visiting

Magistrate is engaged to treat any default by an officer in-charge of a police station or any

agency as misconduct and deal with such in accordance with the relevant law.3

1
Ibid s34(1)
2
Ibid s34(2)
3
Ibid s34(3)
38
 CHAPTER FOUR
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION AND CHALLENGES,
CONSTRAINTS AND PROSPECTS

4.1. INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ADMINISTRATION

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) is unmistakably the

hottest Law in Nigeria presently and it is without doubt due to its wide

applicability and revolutionary nature. The Law comes in handy for both

lawyers and non-lawyers. Section 1(1) the Administration of Criminal Justice

Act, 2015 (ACJA) is to ensure administration of criminal justice, promotes

efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of

justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of the rights and

interests of the suspect, the defendant, and the victim. The objective to ensure

proper administration and efficient management of criminal justice institutions

is to realized quick dispensation of justice and protect the society from crime as

well as the rights and interests of the suspects, defendants and the victim. So,

the way the ACJA is structure is justice achievement oriented.1

On the contrary, the criminal justice institutions are in the state of malfunction

and this in part is traceable to faulty institutional structures, which involves the

various criminal justice institutions.

1
Akamba J. Agbor, Problems and Prospects of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, being a long essay submitted to
Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan, 2016 sourced from www.academia.com on 27th October 2021
39
For instance, the police, the various judiciaries, Federal and States, the Offices

of Attorney General Federal and State, the Prison Services, the Legal Aid

Council, the Bar, and to some degrees the ministries of health in the State are

considerably, inactive. The administration of criminal justice is a precise or

well-organized supervision and harmonization of the functions of these

organizations. But this is not the case in that these institutions in part contribute

to delays and congestions in prisons and courts. Again, there is also buck

passing common among them.1

4.2. PROBLEM OF INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

The ACJA further envisages that the courts, law enforcement agencies and other

agencies of criminal justice administration should ensure compliance in order to

realize its purposes. The implication here is to evolve a harmonious working

relationship between the institutions of criminal justice administration. The

police and the lawyers have never seen themselves as comrade. There is the air

of superiority and competition between them.

As important as the institutions of criminal justice administration are, they are

improperly coordinated. There seem to be lack of committed efforts, proper

planning, and adequate control and budgeting from both the federal and states

government. The calls for reform of these institutions most times fall on deaf

ears. Efficiency is unlikely to be attained even in State as some of these

1
Mahmoud, A.B. op. cit. 1 cited in Akamba J. Agbor, Problems and Prospects of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015,
being a long essay submitted to Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan, 2016 sourced from www.academia.com on 27th October 2021
40
institutions are outside the States direct control. Aside, these institutions are

inherently resistant to pressure for change or reform. It is necessary to revealed

that those at the receiving end bear the brunt of these institutions as they lack

the wherewithal to exert the required change. These have occasion grave

consequences in the criminal justice system.

4.2.1. THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ARREST, BAIL, AND PREVENTIVE

JUSTICE

In the first place, except by courts’ order a person cannot be arrested. Since

arrest will deprive a person of his liberty and freedom of movement legally and

constitutionally guaranteed. However, if there are reasons given which the

above provisions can be derogated upon, there must be legally followed. That is

only when one has been found guilty by court; or in contempt of court, or there

is a reasonable suspicion of his having committed a crime. This is the base of

the Administration of Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) provision of arrest. When a

person has been alleged of or charged with a commission of a crime enacted by

law of the Federal Legislature, ACJA follows its predecessors in providing for

arrest before investigation and inquiry into the crime is made by agencies

invested with prosecutorial powers. Furthermore, these constitute the constraints

to realizing its purposes and objectives as provided.

Chiefly among these are speedy dispensations of justice, decongestions of

courts and prisons, etcetera. For in the instant where the accused person without

appropriate and proper charge is dump in prison amount to abuse of the process

41
which matters are tried in court of which the ACJA intends to provide succor.

More so, it denies a suppose suspect the ability to access justice since his right

are suspended, the rule of law derogated and his dignity impugned upon. In the

place of notification and rights of arrest as earlier mentioned, it is not clear, if a

private person makes arrest and did not know those right available to the

accused, what becomes of the process? Again, a private person is expected to

make a formal witness statement against the accused that he hands over to the

police,1 it is not clear what the ACJA meant by “re-arrest” in the instant that an

accused has been handed over to the police.2 Secondly, Justice of Peace,

Magistrate or Judge can make arrest; it is not cleared whether such a judicial

officer will also submits a formal witness statement and if it is so, the law

entitles an accused person to confront his accuser at the witness box. What,

because of the process where the judge is both a prosecutor and the twin pillars

of fair hearing; Nemo judex in causa sua and alteram partem.3

Under the CPA4 and CPC5, the power to grant bail with respect of a charge

attracting the death penalty lies in the High Court in the case of the CPA. The

discussion on bail in this segment is restricted to bail in capital offences at the

trial stage because it is more difficult to secure bail in such instances than in

trial for offences attracting lesser penalties. The CPC provided that persons

charged with an offence attracting death penalty are not to be released on bail

1
s23(5) ACJA, 2015
2
s23(6) ACJA, 2015
3
ss24-26 ACJA, 2015
4
s118 CPA
5
s341 CPC
42
except there were further enquiries to be made.1 These provisions provided a lot

of difficulty in the administration of criminal justice, particularly for the

Northern States where the CPC was applicable.

Again, the courts in the execution of their judicial powers had made repeated

pronouncements as to the „exceptional circumstances‟ where an accused person

charged with a capital offence may be admitted to bail. The circumstances

include: ill health and long delay in prosecution. 2 Consequently, where an

accused person fails to prove that he is so ill as to warrant medical treatment

outside the prison walls, he would be unable to get an order admitting him to

bail. This was the position of the Supreme Court in the case of Abacha v. State.3

Although this continued to be the attitude of the courts in an application for bail,

it may be said that the rule stating the exceptional circumstance where bail may

be granted in a trial for capital offence was mainly a creation of the court.

4.2.2. THE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH JURISDICTION OF COURT

The criminal jurisdiction of the ACJA is provided and bestowed on the federal

high court and other courts created by reason of an Act of the National

Assembly with criminal trial jurisdiction except the Court Martial. This

conferment can be traced to the CFRN where it is provided that the Federal

High Court shall also have and exercise jurisdiction and powers in respect of

criminal causes and matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred by

1
This was the position of the Law upon the community reading of the ss341 (1) & (3) CPC
2
The cases of Abacha v. State [2002] 5 NWLR (pt 761) 638 and Bamayi v. State [2001] 8 NWLR (pt 715) p. 270
3
Ibid
43
subsection (1) of this section.1 One could infer from the above that state courts

will not apply the provisions of the ACJA. Nevertheless, the position in section

86 is not very clear; particularly that the ACJA is applicable to all criminal trials

and proceedings except there is express provision made in respect of any

particular court or form of trial or proceeding. The confusion is one of whether

the ACJA is covering the field in criminal jurisdiction. Because in INEC v

Musa2 the court observed that the doctrine of covering the field arise where a

state House of Assembly enacted a law which the National Assembly had

already enacted an Act covering the matter.3

Another problem arises where the ACJA provides4 that “court” includes Federal

Courts, the Magistrates’ Court and that “Magistrates” Court means Magistrates’

Court established under the law of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory.

The question then is whether the Magistrates Courts are not created by an Act of

the National Assembly can apply an Act enacted by the National Assembly? In

what cases and how will it applies or whether this interpretation does not lend

itself to evasiveness? This is so because jurisdiction is fundamental to the

realization of criminal justice administration’s goals. For the reason that the

prosecutor will not be at lost on which court to approach, to institute criminal

proceedings against an accused person. Conversely, in a situation where the

1
s251(1)(3) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
2
[2003] 3 NWLR (Pt. 606) 72
3
Akamba J. Agbor op. cit
4
s494 ACJA
44
jurisdiction of the court is indeterminate, it will lead to running from pillar to

post in search of a court with criminal jurisdiction.1

In Okereke v. Yar’Adua2 the Supreme held that the issue of jurisdiction cannot

therefore be subjected to the dictates of any statute, including rules of court.

Any case which therefore is an abuse it was held 3 must go under the hammer so

as to halt the drift created abuse. In this vein, for the ACJA to bring a charge to

a court that has no jurisdiction is to encourage abuse of process which will

advertently affect the administration of criminal justice.

4.2.3. THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PROSECUTION

The Constitution4 provided for the powers of the Attorney General of the

Federation and those of the States and others who could by fiat, to commence

the prosecution on the behalf of the state. The Osahon’s Case has put to rest the

imbroglio between who has the power to prosecute or not between relevant

authorities and other relevant rules of courts. This may seem as winning the

battle and yet to win the war because prosecution follows after arrest has been

made. The constitution also provides that upon arrest,5 within 24 hours or at

most 48 hours because of the location of the court, a person arrested of having

committed criminal offence duly prohibited and the punishment prescribed

1
Akamba J. Agbor, op. cit.
2
[2008] All FWLR (PT. 430) 626
3
Dinyadi v INEC [2011] All FWLR (PT. 581) 1426
4
ss174 and 211
5
s35(5) CFRN
45
should be taken to court and criminal charges press on the indicted person or

persons1.

But over the years it has seem impracticable because of a number of issues.

Further, the police have been found to obey these provisions in half-truths as

they duly will bring a suspect on a “holding charge” rather than a criminal

charge to a court that has no jurisdiction for an order by application for remand.

This has even been canonized in section 293(1) of the ACJA.

However, the problems militating against prosecution as means to realizing the

purpose of administration of criminal justice, by the findings of this study, are:

a. Absence of probable cause

b. Deferred prosecution/prosecutorial immunity

c. The issuance of Legal advice/Prosecutorial discretion

d. Selective/Vindictive prosecution, and

e. Prosecutorial misconduct

4.2.4. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT

Under the ACJA2 it is provided that when a person is arrested for an offence

which a court has no jurisdiction to try (shall) within a reasonable time of arrest

the suspect should be brought before a High Court for remand; An application

for remand should be made ex parte and in the prescribed, verified on oath and

contain reasons for the remand request. The constitution did not make provision

for a court without jurisdiction. Rather, it is provided that “the judicial powers
1
Akamba J. Agbor op. cit.
2
s293(1) ACJA, 2015
46
of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates,

being courts established for the Federation and those courts are listed under the

constitution.1 Also that the judicial powers entrusted those courts have no

limitation on all inherent powers and sanctions of court of law; all matters

between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in

Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the

determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that

person. Of interest is the provision of s6 (5) (k) which states that such other

courts as may be authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with

respect to which the National Assembly may make laws.2

The import from the above is that the Constitution did not envisage any court to

be without a proper jurisdiction. Moreover, the inherent powers of a court

cannot be exercise outside the purview of the Constitution and these are the

internal rules and orders of the courts; because the courts of law are the

custodian of the Constitution. Evidently, every court is adequately provided for.

Criminal matters may be, are not a cause that ought to be tried on ex parte

application since the life and liberty of an accused person is in a limbo 3. In this

wise the law provided for fair hearing that “a person cannot be convicted of a

criminal offence without that offence being defined and the penalty therefore

prescribed in a written law, and a written law refers to an Act of the National

1
s6(5) (a-k) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
2
Ibid
3
Akamba J. Agbor op. cit.
47
Assembly or a Law of a State, any subsidiary legislation or instrument under the

provisions of a law.”1

Furthermore, the Constitution provides that reasonable time means arrest or

detention where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of

forty kilometers, a period of one day 24 hours or at worst two days (48 hours) or

more considered by the court to be reasonable2.

The detention time limit3 of ACJA arrogates too much vires and thus contradicts

the provisions of the Constitution. More so, the ACJA cannot validate and

invalidate. It cannot hope to bring a solution by aggravating the process itself.

The reasons behind this submission is on the ground that firstly induced to wit

police may arrest when they are first instructed to or when there is a reasonable

suspicion; second the matter being brought to court with no competent

jurisdiction. If the police as a criminal justice institution fail to do the needful

and proper thing should the ACJA follow suits by responding to the scourge of

so called “holding charge;” remand and Detention Time Limits in 14 Days in

the first instance, further remand for a period not exceeding another 14 Days

and, in exceptional circumstances, for a final period of 14 days. Conflicting

also the remand time limits with the longer periods prescribed under the

Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA4):

1
Ibid
2
s35(5)(a)(b) CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
3
Part 30; s293-299 of ACJA
4
s27 TPA No. 10, 2011
48
Detention for offences related to terrorism: Section 27(1) the court may,

pursuant to an ex-parte application, grant an order for the detention of a suspect

under this Act for a period not exceeding 90 days subject to renewal for a

similar period until the conclusion of the investigation and prosecution of the

matter that led to the arrest and detention is dispensed with1.

Further from the preceding, it should not be lost in a hurry that the constitution

is the custodian of the Nigerian legal system. Under the administration of

criminal justice, this system should be jealously guided, entrenched and

followed as it is in section 36(5) of the CFRN. Further, is section 135(1) of the

Evidence Act2 which stipulates the standard of proof require in criminal matters

in order to rebuttal the innocence of an accused person is, “proof beyond

reasonable doubt.3 Hence, a court that has no competent jurisdiction in a subject

should not be allowed by the ACJA to play Pilate to command remand on

holding charge and destroy the life of innocent suspect compounding woes to

administration of criminal justice.

There is presumption of innocence and the proof is beyond reasonable. Such

proof cannot be determined in a court that has no jurisdiction, on the pretext of

waiting for a copy of legal advice. This process and the whole gamut in it

impede the purposes of justice and the rights of the accused person. It makes the

1
Akamba J. Agbor op. cit
2
Cap E14 LFN, 2011
3
Amusa v The State [2002] FWLR (Pt.85) 382.
49
prosecution irresponsible and lazy about the work yet seeks the court to

assistance at the expense of the other. According to legal Dictionary1

An ex parte judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one

party. Ex parte may also describe contact with a person represented by

an attorney, outside the presence of the attorney. The term ex parte is

used in a case name to signify that the suit was brought by the person

whose name follows the term. However, under the Constitution 2, "No

person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without DUE

PROCESS of law." A bedrock feature of due process is fair notice to

parties who may be affected by legal proceedings. An ex parte judicial

proceeding, conducted without notice to, and outside the presence of,

affected parties, would appear to violate the Constitution. However,

adequate notice of judicial proceedings to concerned parties may at times

work irreparable harm to one or more of those parties. In such a case,

the threatened party or parties may receive an ex parte court hearing to

request temporary judicial relief without notice to, and outside the

presence of, other persons affected by the hearing.

The point is that there is no semblance of due process of law in that provision.

Moreover, it has not address the issue of why a suspect should be charge before

a court when the police have not completed investigation or why the alleged

offender should even be brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to try the

1
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ex+parte
2
s17 CFRN, 1999 as amended (2018)
50
offence at all. These issues are germane to the realization of its goals as

enumerated under ACJA1.

4.3. THE PROSPECTS AND KEY INNOVATIONS

The prospect and key innovations of Administration of Criminal Justice Act,

2015 (ACJA).2 Ordinarily, having discussed much of the problems that may

likely affect, in contradiction of, the veracity of administration of criminal

justice, it would seem apparently out of place to now examine that there is also

a future in it. This goes to show that there is absolutely nothing without residue

of good quality; except it is not considered circumspectly 3. Evidently therefore,

the institutional and context wise factors are not a total barrier as the ACJA has

shown that it can remedy them4.

In the eye of a critic, nothing with issues ever additionally can be acceptable. Be

that as it may, a researcher’s preoccupation is to point out the merits and the

demerits. To call attention to that a few, if not all, demerits have the ability to

manage the cost of favorable circumstances ceteris paribus, (if all other

pertinent things, elements, or component stay unaltered and being equivalent). It

is along these lines trusted that those other applicable elements of the ACJA,

enumerated immediately below, continue the improvement or advance its

1
s1(1)(2) and s470(2)(a-h)
2
E. I. Alakija, (2015); Understanding the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015; in the Annual General Meeting of the Nigerian Bar
Association (NBA), at the International Conference Centre, Abuja, Nigeria, on August 25, 2015.pp.10-14. (https://s3-eu-west-
1.amazonaws.com/nbaagc/papers/Sessions_Files/ACJ_Act_Session/
UNDERSTANDING+THE+NEW+ADMINISTRATION+OF+CRIMINAL+JUSTICE+ACT.ppt+final.pdf) accessed 16th November, 2021.
3
Ibid
4
Ibid
51
motivation handing down them on the next generation after the agrarian and

colonial law that was so inherited and repealed in the present generation.

Ordinarily, having discussed much of the problems that may likely affect, in

contradiction of, the veracity of administration of criminal justice, it would

seem apparently out of place to now examine that there is also a future in it.

This goes to show that there is absolutely nothing without residue of good

quality; except it is not considered circumspectly 1. Evidently therefore, the

institutional and context wise factors are not a total barrier as the ACJA has

shown that it can remedy them2.

1. RETURNS BY COMPTROLLER‐GENERAL OF PRISONS

By the innovation of section 111 of the ACJA, the Comptroller ‐General of

Prisons is to make returns every ninety days to the Chief Judge and the

Attorney‐General of the Federation of all persons awaiting trial held in custody

for a period beyond one hundred and eighty days from the date arraignment.

The returns shall be in a prescribed form and shall contain such information

such as: (a) the name of the suspect held in custody or Awaiting Trial Persons,

(b) passport photograph of the suspect; (c) the date(s) of his arraignment or

remand; (d)the date(s) of his admission to custody; (e) the particulars of the

offence with which he was charged, (f) the courts before which he was

arraigned (g) name of the prosecuting agency, and (h) any other relevant

1
Ibid
2
Ibid
52
information. Upon the receipt of such return, the recipient shall take such steps

as are necessary to address the issues raised in the return in furtherance of the

objectives of the ACJ Act.1

2. WOMEN SURETIES

The current practice in Nigeria where women are routinely denied the right to

stand as sureties for the purpose of entering into recognizance for bail received

the attention of the ACJA. By virtue of section 167 (3) “no person shall be

denied, prevented or restricted from entering into any recognizance or standing

as surety for any defendant or applicant on the ground only that the person is a

woman”. This provision is commendable as it is in line with the 1999

Constitution and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against

Women (CEDAW) which has been ratified by Nigeria.2 

3. PROFESSIONAL BONDSPERSON  

Section 187 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) makes

provisions for professional Bondspersons. It provides for the registration and

use of Bondspersons and gives the Chief Judge the powers to make regulations

in developing details of the best practices in the use of Bondsperson. The

Bondspersons may undertake recognizance, act as surety, or guarantee the

deposit of money as required by the bail condition of any person granted bail

by the court within the jurisdiction in which the bondsperson is registered. The

1
s111(1-3) ACJA, 2015
2
Y. Akinseye‐George, SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE INNOVATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ACT (ACJA) 2015 (http://www.censolegs.org/publications/6.pdf) pp12-13, accessed 16th November, 2021
53
 Chief Judge may withdraw the registration of a bondsperson who contravenes

the terms of his licence. Where a Bondsperson arrests a defendant or suspect

who is absconding or who he believes is trying to evade or avoid appearance in

court he shall arrest him immediately and hand him over to the nearest police

station. The defendant must be taken to the appropriate court within twelve

hours of his arrest.1

4. GUIDELINE TO PREVENT ABUSES IN PLEA BARGAIN  

Plea bargaining is one of the tools employed in the criminal justice system. It

helps the State to manage caseloads. It reduces the work workload of the

prosecutor and saves resources for the State. Plea bargain refers to a situation

where a defendant pleads guilty to a charge or a lesser charge in exchange for a

lighter sentence. By virtue of Section 270 of the Act, the Prosecutor has the

power to consider and accept a plea bargain from a person charged with any

offence where the prosecutor is of the view that the acceptance of such plea

bargain is in the interest of justice, the public interest, public policy and the

need to prevent abuse of legal process.  In determining whether it is in the

public interest to enter into a plea bargain, the prosecution must weigh all

relevant factors, including:

i. the defendant’s willingness to cooperate in the investigation or

prosecution of others;

ii. the defendant’s history with respect to criminal activity;

1
Ibid
54
iii. the defendant’s remorse or contrition and his willingness to assume

responsibility for his conduct;

iv. the desirability of prompt and certain disposition of the case;

v. the likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial, the probable effect on

witnesses;

vi. the probable sentence or other consequences if the defendant is

convicted;

vii. the need to avoid delay in the disposition of other pending cases; and

viii. the expense of trial and appeal.  

ix. The defendant’s willingness to make restitution or pay compensation to

the victim where appropriate.

The ACJA further provides that the prosecutor can only enter into a plea or

sentence agreement after consultation with the investigating police officer, and

the victim or his representative, with due regard to the nature of and

circumstances relating to the offence, the defendant and public interest.   The

prosecutor, where it is reasonably feasible, is to afford the complainant or his

representative the opportunity to make representations to the prosecutor

regarding the contents of the agreement and the inclusion in the agreement of a

compensation or restitution order. Such agreements between the parties must be

in writing and signed. The presiding Judge or Magistrate is not permitted to be

part of the discussions.  

55
 Where there is an agreement between the parties, the prosecutor shall inform

the court of the agreement reached by the parties. It is the duty of the presiding

Judge or Magistrate to inquire from the defendant to confirm the correctness

and the voluntariness of the agreement. After considering the agreed sentence,

the presiding Judge or Magistrate may impose the sentence agreed upon, or

impose a lesser sentence. Where presiding judge or magistrate is of the view

that the offence requires a heavier sentence than the one agreed, he is to inform

the defendant of his view. The defendant may decide to abide by his plea of

guilty and accept the sentence by the Judge or Magistrate, or he may decide to

withdraw from his plea agreement. If he does so, the trial proceeds de novo1

before another presiding Judge or Magistrate.2

The provision which allows the Judge or Magistrate to decline to be bound by

sentence agreed to by the prosecutor and defendant is a safeguard for situations

where public sensibility may be offended by the sentence agreed. A number of

influential Nigerians including Mr. Tafa Balogun, former Inspector‐General of

Police, Mrs. Cecilia Ibru, former MD of Oceanic Bank, Mr. Lucky Igbinedion,

former Governor of Edo State and others have had plea bargaining applied to

their cases. The cases show that the absence of clear guidelines on the

application of plea bargaining may have led to abuses and discrepancies in its

application. However, with the provisions of the ACJA 2015 it is hoped that

1
De novo is a Latin expression meaning “from the beginning or afresh”.  
2
Ibid
56
 plea bargaining will be effectively and scientifically utilised in the Nigerian

criminal justice system.3 

5. WITNESS PROTECTION

Section 232(4) of the Act permits witnesses to some offences to give evidence

in camera. These include:

(a)sexual related offences,

(b)Terrorism offences,

(c) offences relating to Economic and Financial Crimes,

(d)Trafficking in Persons and related offences, and

(e) any other offence in respect of which an Act of the National Assembly

which permit the use of such protective measures.

Under the provision of Section 232(3) of the Act, the name and identity of the

victims of such offences or witnesses shall not be disclosed in any record or

report of the proceedings and it shall be sufficient to designate the names of the

victims or witnesses with a combination of alphabets. It further provides that

where in any proceedings the court determines it is necessary to protect the

identity of the victim or a witness the court may take any or all of the following

measures:

(a) receive evidence by video link.  

3
Ibid
57
 (b) permit the witness to be screened or masked.

(c) receive written deposition of expert evidence.

(d) any other measure that the court considers appropriate in the circumstance.

The Act also stipulates that anyone who contravenes the provisions of section

232 shall be sentenced to a minimum term of one year imprisonment.

6. SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES BY COURIER COMPANIES

This is another innovative provision in the ACJA which states that service of

court processes may be effected by registered and reputable courier service

company dully registered, recognized and authorized by the Chief Judge as a

process service agent of the court under this Act. 1 This is to ensure that service

of court processes is handled by professionals.

7. COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME

Victims of crimes are often neglected and left without any form of

compensation even when the offender has been found guilty and sentenced.

The ACJA has addressed this ugly trend by broadening the powers of the court

to award costs, compensation and damages in deserving cases, especially to

victims of crime. The Act adopted and improved on the provisions of the

Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.   

By the provisions of section 319 of the ACJA, court may within the

proceedings or when passing judgment, order the convict to pay compensation

1
s122 ACJA, 2015
58
 to any person injured by the offence, irrespective of any other fine or other

punishment that may be imposed or that is imposed on the defendant, where

substantial compensation is in the opinion of the court recoverable by civil suit.

The court may order the defendant to pay a sum of money to defray expenses

incurred in the prosecution. The court may also order the convict to pay

compensation to an innocent purchaser of any property in respect of which the

offence has been committed who has been compelled to give it up. 1 The court

may also order the convicted person to pay some money in defraying expenses

incurred in medical treatment of any person injured by the convict in

connection with the offence.

8. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

In order to ensure speedy trial, the Act provides in Section 306 2 that application

for stay of proceedings shall no longer be heard until judgment and cannot

operate to stall continuation of trial. This is a revolutionary move that is

unprecedented given the delays occasioned to the trial process by interlocutory

applications to stay proceedings pending appeal on preliminary matters even

when the substantive issues are yet to be tried on the merits. What the ACJA

has done is to amplify the provisions of the constitution to ensure speedy

dispensation of justice. This new law is very progressive, timely and in

conformity with international best practices.

1
S319(1)(b) ACJA, 2015
2
An application for stay of proceedings in respect of criminal matter before the court shall not be entertained.
59
 9. NON‐CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

The ACJA in sections 453, 460 and 468 attempted to address the problem of

excessive use of imprisonment as a disposal method by introducing some

alternatives to imprisonment. These include the introduction of suspended

sentence, community service, parole and probation. It also provides that the

court, in exercising its power shall have regard to the need to: (a) reduce

congestion in prisons; (b)rehabilitate prisoners by making them to undertake

productive work; and (c) Prevent convict who commit simple offences from

mixing with hardened criminals. By virtue of 467 courts may sentence and

order a convict to serve the sentence at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre

established by the Federal Government in lieu of imprisonment. The court in

making an order of confinement at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre

shall have regard to the age of the convict; the fact that the convict is a first

offender; and any other relevant circumstances necessitating an order of

confinement at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre. The section further

provides that the court may make an order directing that a child standing

criminal trial be remanded at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre.

10. TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF LEGAL ADVICE

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) make provision for

time limit for the issuance of DPP’s legal advice.1 It states that the Attorney‐

General of the Federation shall, within fourteen days of receipt of police case

1
s376 ACJA, 2015
60
 file, issue and serve a legal advice indicating whether or not there is a prima

facie case against a defendant for which he can be prosecuted. The provision

further provides that where the Attorney‐General of the Federation is of the

opinion as contained in the legal advice that the suspect has no prima facie case

to answer, he shall serve a copy of the legal advice on:

(a) the police or the head of the police legal unit through whom the police case

file was sent to the Attorney‐General of the Federation.

(b)the court before whom the suspect was remanded in prison, where he is in

remand custody, or before whom the suspect was granted bail, where he is on

bail; and

(c) the suspect in respect of whom legal advice is preferred through the prison

authority, where the suspect is remanded in custody, or through his legal

representative.

The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of the Lagos State, M.

Onigbanjo has reiterated that the timeline for the issuance of Legal Advice in

criminal cases by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will no longer

exceed two weeks from the receipt of a duplicate case file from the Police. time

limit for the issuance of Legal Advice in criminal cases by the Directorate of

Public Prosecutions (DPP) will no longer exceed two weeks from the receipt of

a duplicate case file from the Police.1

1
Onignanjo M., AG, Lagos, Time Limit for Issuance of Legal Advice in Criminal Cases By DPP will No Longer Exceed 2 Weeks
(https://thenigerialawyer.com/time-limit-for-issuance-of-legal-advice-in-criminal-cases-by-dpp-will-no-longer-exceed-2-weeks-moyosore-
onignanjo-aglagos/TheNigeriaLawyers) accessed 16th November, 2021.
61
 11. SPEEDY TRIAL

The ACJA in section 396 makes provision for day‐to‐day trial of criminal

cases. This is to ensure that criminal cases are expeditiously dealt with in line

with the provision of the Constitution. Where day‐to‐day trial is impracticable

after arraignment, parties shall only be entitled to five adjournments each. The

interval between each adjournment shall not exceed fourteen days. This section

also provides that where it is impracticable to conclude a criminal proceeding

after the parties have exhausted their five adjournments each, the interval

between one adjournment to another shall not exceed seven days. The court

may award costs in order to discourage frivolous adjournments.

The provision further states that a Judge of the High Court who has been

elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a

High Court Judge for the purpose of concluding any part‐heard criminal matter

pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude same within

a reasonable time. This provision is intended to address the problem of trial de

novo.1 By virtue of section 306, an application for stay of proceedings in

respect of a criminal matter before the Court shall not be entertained. Section

109(4) of the Act provides that where a charge is preferred at the magistrate

court and the trial does not commence within thirty days, or trial has

commenced but has not been completed after one hundred and eighty days of

arraignment on that charge, the Court shall forward to the Chief Judge the

1
De novo is a Latin expression meaning “from the beginning or afresh”. 
62
particulars of the charge and reasons for failure to commence the trial or to

complete the trial. Section 109(5) mandates Courts seized of criminal

jurisdiction to make quarterly returns of the particulars of all cases, including

charges, remand and other proceedings commenced and dealt with in a Court to

the Chief Judge. In reviewing the returns, the Chief Judge shall have regard to

the need to ensure that: (a) criminal matters are speedily dealt with; (b)

congestion of cases in courts is drastically reduced; (c) congestion of prisons is

reduced to the barest minimum; and (d) persons awaiting trial are, as far as

possible, not detained in prison custody for a length of time beyond the

prescribed period. The Act further provides that the Administration of Criminal

Justice Monitoring Committee shall have power to consider all returns made to

the Chief Judge for the purpose of ensuring expeditious disposal of cases. The

National Human Rights Commission shall also have access to the said return

upon request to the Chief Judge. Section 349(7) of the Act states that a legal

practitioner, other than a law officer, engaged in a matter shall be bound to

conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution or defendant until final judgment,

unless allowed for any special reason to cease from acting by the Court of its

own motion or upon application by the legal practitioner. Where a legal

practitioner intends to disengage from a matter, he shall notify the Court, not

less than three days before the date fixed for hearing and such notice shall be

served on the Court and all parties.

63
Furthermore, section 382 provides that where an information has been filed in

the court, the Chief Judge shall assign it for trial within fifteen working day of

its filing.  On assigning the information, the court to which the information is

assigned shall within ten  working days of the assignment issue notice of trial to

the witnesses and defendants and a reproduction warrant properly endorsed by

the Judge in respect of the defendant charged, where he is in custody, for the

purpose of ensuring his appearance on the date of arraignment, and the Chief

Registrar shall ensure the prompt service of the notice and information not

more than three days from the date they are issued.

12. ELECTRONIC RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Section 364 provides the legislative backing for court proceedings to be

recorded electronically. It states that in certain exceptional circumstances,

where the evidence of a technical, professional or expert witness would not

ordinarily be contentious as to require cross‐examination, the court may grant

leave for the evidence to be taken in writing or by electronic recording device.

Similarly, section 362 states that where it appears to the court that a person who

is seriously ill or hurt may not recover, but is able and willing to give material

evidence relating to an offence and it is not practicable to take the evidence the

during trial, the Judge or Magistrate shall take in writing the statement on oath

or affirmation of the person. The Judge or Magistrate shall preserve the

statement and file it for record.

64
 13. RIGHT TO BAIL  

Sections 30, 31, 32 and 158‐ 164 of the ACJA make an elaborate provision on

rights of an arrested person to be admitted on bail.  It permits an oral

application in non‐capital cases1. The Act also made specific provisions on bail

where a person is charged with a capital offence. Such a person can only be

admitted to bail by a High Court Judge under exceptional circumstances. Such

circumstance may include:

(a) ill health of the applicant which shall be confirmed and certified by a

qualified medical practitioner employed in a Government hospital;

(b) extraordinary delay in the investigation, arraignment and prosecution for a

period exceeding one year; or

(c) any other circumstances that the Judge may, in the particular facts of the

case, consider exceptional.  

A person charged with an offence exceeding 3 years imprisonment shall upon

application to the court be released on bail, except in any of the following

circumstances:

(a) where there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant will, where

released on bail, commit another offence;

(b) attempt to evade his trial;  

(c) attempt to influence, interfere with, intimidate witnesses, and or interfere in

the investigation of the case;  

1
s32 ACJ Bill
65
(d) attempt to conceal or destroy evidence;  

(e) prejudice the proper investigation of the offence; or

(f) undermine or jeopardize the objectives or the purpose or the functioning of

the criminal justice administration, including the bail system.

These provisions of the ACJ Act regarding conditions for grant of bail in

capital offences are clearer and detailed.

14. QUARTERLY REPORT OF ARRESTS TO THE ATTORNEY‐GENERAL OF

THE FEDERATION

Section 29 of the ACJA provides that the Inspector General Police and heads of

every agency authorized by law to make arrest shall remit quarterly to the

Attorney‐General of the Federation a record of all arrests made in relation to

federal offences or arrests within Nigeria. Subsection (1) of section 29 of the

Act also mandates the Commissioner of Police of a State to remit to the office

of the Attorney‐General of that State a record of all arrests. Such record is to

contain the full particulars of the person arrested as prescribed in Section 15 of

the Act. Section 29(5) empowers the Attorney‐General of the Federation to

establish an electronic and manual database of all records of arrested persons at

the Federal and State level.

15. NOTIFICATION OF CAUSE OF ARREST

Sections 5 of the CPA and 38 of the CPC provide that a police officer or a

person making an arrest is to inform the arrested person of the reason for the

arrest, except where he is being arrested in course of the commission of the

66
 offence or is pursued immediately after the commission of the offence or

escaped from lawful custody. It has been argued that this provision falls short

of the contemporary requirement1. The ACJ Act 2015 retains this provision in

section 6.    However, there is a proviso which mandates the police officer or

any other person to inform the suspect of his right to:

(a) remain silent or avoid answering any question until after consultation with a

legal practitioner or any other person of his own choice;

(b) consult a legal practitioner of his choice before making, endorsing or

writing any statement or answering any question put to him after arrest;  

(c) Free legal representation by the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria where

applicable.

This provision re‐affirms section 35(2) of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria, which provides that any person who is arrested or detained

shall have the right to remain silent or answering any question until after

consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his choice.

It is necessary to state here that the proviso in section 6 (2) is quite laudable

since the suspect will have the benefit of not only being informed of the

offence, he has committed but also an additional advantage of counsel assisting

in securing his immediate release on bail and ensuring expeditious trial. This

would in turn prevent prolonged detention of suspects and hopefully bring

about decongestion of the prisons.  

1
Ani C. C., Reforms in the Nigerian Criminal Procedure Laws, Nigeria Institute of Advance Legal Studies Journal on Criminal Law and
Justice, Vol. 1 2011.
67
 CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Over the range of this study, close attention was paid to the diverse execution

workplaces under the Act – the Nigeria Police Force, legal executive, and the

Nigeria Prisons Service to review the headway made in the utilization of the

Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA). A comparation

correlation at the workplaces shows that the legal executive has advanced the

most endeavors towards consenting and completing arrangement of the ACJA.

These undertakings are also fortified by the calling of the past Chief Justice of

Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen (resigned), for state legal associations to set

up exceptional courts to treat degradation cases, similarly as the setting up of

the Corruption and Financial Crimes Cases Trial Monitoring Committee

(COTRIMCO), which are all to ensure revived value organization on pollution

cases in consistence with the ACJA. While the whole of the above isn't to

express that the legal executives is at its best in consenting to the courses of

action of the ACJA, the certain and aware undertakings being made are

estimable.

The prison workplaces need enough practical vehicles to pass on prisoners to

courts and ambulances to take them to clinics, particularly during emergencies;

the non-attendance of fundamental clinical workplaces, prescriptions and help

68
from government crisis centers; and moreover deficient eating utensils and

garbs for the prisoners, to indicate a couple. The working and living conditions

of the prison staff are in like manner a zone requiring pressing consideration. In

like way, the setting up of stakeholder committee group by the Attorney

General of the Federation to manage and speedy track the decongestion of

prisons and the progressing order by President Muhammadu Buhari to all state

governors to work with their State Chief Judges to release prisoners

unnecessarily kept without reasonable treatment are an invited advancement and

positive developments to start to address the issues of jail blockages and

anticipating preliminary detainees, in accordance with the ACJA.

One essential feature of the ACJA is its paradigm shift from punishment as the

main goal of the criminal justice to restorative justice which pays serious

attention to the needs of the society, the victims, vulnerable persons and human

dignity generally. The general tone of the Act puts human dignity in the fore,

from the adoption of the word defendant instead of accused person, to its

provision for humane treatment during arrest, to its numerous provisions for

speedy trial, to suspended sentencing, community service, parole, compensation

to victims of crime and so-on.

69
5.2 CONCLUSION

One of the major innovations brought about generally by the reforms is that

conscious effort was made to strengthen the rights of the defendant and reduce

delays in the criminal process. Though most of these rights had existed before

now, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) has added

emphasis to them. It has also ironed out a lot or grey areas that had been long

overdue for change. With the passage of the Administration of Criminal Justice

Act, 2015 (ACJA) the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Criminal Procedure Code

(CPC) and the Administration of Justice Commission Act stand repealed in the

Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The Act provides a model for the States of the

Federation. 

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The administration of criminal justice system in Nigeria needs to be

repositioned in a better standing. Therefore, courts in Nigeria should be well

equipped with latest technology like stenography and computerization. The

work of judges and magistrates could be made easier by computerizing the

courts and employing clerks for judges and magistrates. Clerks here are lawyers

who are employed by judges or research assistants. In USA, a judge of the US

is entitled to employ up to four clerks and they are paid by the states.

Beyond the need for granting bail to an accused person who is being detained

on a holding charge, it has even been held that it is now trite law that once a

70
court observed that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the proper

order to make is to strike out the matter and not to remand the suspect because

any subsequent proceeding or order made by the court is a nullity and

consequently void. There remains no legal basis for it and its use as an

application of the machinery of justice for a purpose for which it is not meant

wholly amounts to be abuse of process. It should be noted that England from

where we lifted our legal system has long abolished the holding Journal of

Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN

2224-3259 (Online) Vol.26, 2014 137 charge phenomenon such that all cases

of indictable offence are investigated promptly and charged directly before the

High Court for trial. Unless the holding charge syndrome is also abolished in

Nigeria, the menace of prison congestion with awaiting trial inmates and

subsequent delay in the administration of criminal justice will hardly be

overcome in our legal system.

Laws must advance with the movement of the society to reflect current trends.

Gigantic momentous changes are taking place around the globe; Nigeria must

not be an exception. The Nigeria Government should realize the need of

strengthening the criminal justice sector to meet the challenges of the 21st

century. Laws at its substantive and procedural level, depends on its efficiency

and effectiveness on the mandate of the lawmakers and the procedure of the

law making and its relevance and acceptability of the people.

71
This study does not boast of pointing out all the innovations in the

Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) for lack of time and

space but to create awareness on the latest legislation and the room for further

discussions.

72