‘Large Percentage of Inmates are Awaiting Trial’
Challenges in the Nigerian correctional system are complex, and appear to have defied every possible solution so far. Even the change of name from Nigerian Prisons to Nigerian Correctional Centre, doesn’t seem to have made any positive impact, either in its functioning as such, or in the perception of the public. The way it is run, also hasn’t helped matters, and things seem to have gone from worse to deplorable and shocking. Dr Uju Agomoh, the Executive Director of Prisoners Rehabilitation and Welfare Action (PRAWA) in this engaging interview with Onikepo Braithwaite and Jude Igbanoi gave a holistic view of the Nigerian system of detention of inmates, most of whom are awaiting trial detainees. She proffers a panacea to ameliorating some of these challenges, but concludes that the system is in dire need of total reform, including the need to improve the conditions of service of the staff of the Correctional Service
As Executive Director of Prisoners Rehabilitation and Welfare Action (PRAWA), your NGO has been the arrowhead of reforms in Nigeria’s correctional system. Today, the state of our Correctional Centres is said to be not only appalling, but inhumane, more or less unfit for human habitation, being compared to the worst prisons in the world like Black Beach Prison, Equatorial Guinea and Antanimora Prison in Madagascar. Kindly, tell us about the conditions in the Nigerian prisons and how they have been able to deteriorate so badly. It appears that the authorities do not consider that inmates have any fundamental rights
The state of Nigerian Correctional Centres is indeed, deeply concerning. Many of the correctional facilities suffer from overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of adequate medical care, and substandard living conditions, making them inhumane and unfit for rehabilitation. Cells meant for a few inmates house dozens, sometimes hundreds, leading to poor ventilation, disease outbreaks, and heightened violence among inmates.
The primary factors contributing to this decline include:
i. Overuse of pretrial detention: Over 67% of inmates in the country’s custodial centres are not convicted (including awaiting trials), exacerbating overcrowding. In some custodial centres, non-convicted inmates constitute up to 87%, 92% and more. Most overcrowded custodial centres are in cosmopolitan cities, and there are about 30 of these where this is really high.
ii. Underfunding and neglect: Many Facilities lack adequate Government funding and sustainable processes for maintenance, food, healthcare, and rehabilitation programmes.
iii. Poor implementation of relevant legal framework: Despite the passage of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019, enforcement of inmate rights and humane treatment remains weak, likewise lack of adequate implementation and/or utilisation of non-custodial sanctions. There seems to be an obsession of the Judiciary with the use of imprisonment. Imprisonment should be a measure of last resort, but, in most instances, it is used as a measure of first resort.
iv. Corruption and administrative inefficiencies across the entire justice system: Mismanagement of resources and poor oversight further degrade conditions.
As a follow up to the first question, what, in your view, can be done to ameliorate these challenges, so that the conditions in Nigerian Correctional Facilities can at least meet the basic UN Standards for prison conditions which include decent facilities and humane treatment of inmates, with a view to rehabilitating them
To bring Nigerian correctional facilities up to UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), the following must be prioritised:
The simple answer to this is, let the laws be implemented effectively. The Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019 needs to be fully and effectively implemented. Example, this will include the following:
i. Advancement/effective utilisation of non-custodial sentencing, parole, probation, suspended sentencing and community service.
ii. Adequate funding and the allocation of sufficient budgetary support for facility maintenance, food, medical care, effective implementation of non-custodial measures and rehabilitation programmes.
iii. Mechanisms towards expedited trials, improving case management, and ensuring legal representation, especially legal aid support for all inmates.
iv. Capacity building for correctional officers: Officers should receive training in human rights, rehabilitation, and mental health.
v. Partnerships with NGOs and private sector: Organisations like PRAWA continue to provide legal aid, psychological support, and skills training to inmates, but, these efforts need more collaboration and Government support. Partnerships with professional associations is also key.
vi. The placement of correctional service on the concurrent legislative list should take effect. States should adopt the State Model Correctional Law recently developed, or amend to their taste. At the very least, States should take up the responsibility of feeding and rehabilitation of inmates charged with State offences. I strongly believe that if this is done, especially with respect to the feeding, we will have a reduction in the use (overuse) of imprisonment. This will certainly translate to reduction in the use of pre-trial detention, reduction in overcrowding of custodial centres, reduction in cost, increase in the use of non-custodial measures, etc.
Many wonder why our Prisons were renamed Correctional Centres, when in most cases incarceration in Nigerian prisons appears to exacerbate criminal behaviour instead of rehabilitation. Why is this so? What is the rate of recidivism? Are there even enough Rehabilitation Programmes in the Correctional Centres?
Yes, despite the renaming to Correctional Centres, many Facilities still function primarily as punitive institutions, rather than genuine rehabilitation centres. There is something in a name. The name correctional centres is to enable all envision and live to the new transformative function of corrections, rather than a punitive stance. It is important to note that the renaming was not merely a change in nomenclature. There were clear provisions of the 2019 Act, that are aimed at ensuring that these Facilities become truly correctional Facilities. This is why I emphasised the need to fully and effectively implement the provisions of the 2019 Act. The enactment of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act of 2019 transformed the former Nigerian Prison Service into the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS), with two distinct mandates:
The Custodial Service, which manages inmates in detention facilities, ensuring humane treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
The Non-Custodial Service, which oversees alternatives to imprisonment such as parole, probation, suspended sentences, restorative justice, and community service.
This legislative shift, was intended to move the system from a punitive model to a correctional and rehabilitative approach. However, implementation challenges persist, preventing the full realisation of this vision. The following are the Challenges Affecting Rehabilitation in Correctional Centres:
i. Many correctional facilities lack comprehensive rehabilitation programmes that address the root causes of criminal behaviour.
ii. There are insufficient support systems to help ex-inmates reintegrate into society, leading to a high likelihood of reoffending.
iii. Overcrowding, poor hygiene, and inadequate mental health care contribute to psychological damage and learned criminal behaviour, making rehabilitation difficult.
Regarding the Rate of Recidivism in Nigeria, Studies indicate that recidivism in Nigeria remains high, often exceeding 60%, due to a combination of factors namely: economic marginalisation, societal stigma, and ineffective reintegration programmes. Many former inmates struggle to secure employment or social acceptance, increasing their likelihood of reoffending.
Are There Enough Rehabilitation Programmes? While some rehabilitation initiatives exist, such as vocational training and educational programmes, these are not widespread and often underfunded. A well-functioning correctional system requires structured rehabilitation programmes, mental health services, and stronger collaboration with community-based reintegration initiatives, to ensure that inmates leave the system better equipped to contribute positively to society.
How is it that Juvenile suspects/offenders end up in adult prisons? Is this not contrary to the Child’s Rights Act and Administration of Criminal Justice Act?
The presence of juvenile offenders in adult correctional facilities, is a direct violation of the Child’s Rights Act (2003) and the Nigerian Correctional Service Act of 2019, both of which mandate separate facilities and special protections for children in conflict with the law. However, enforcement remains weak, due to several systemic challenges.
The Child’s Rights Act 2003 (CRA), along with equivalent Child Rights Laws (CRL) in States that have domesticated it, provides robust provisions for the establishment of approved children’s institutions to house, rehabilitate, and reform different categories of child offenders. Notably, Lagos State, in its Child Rights Law, went a step further by not only providing for approved children’s institutions, but also young adult institutions for individuals above 18 years but below 21 years.
Challenges Leading to Juvenile Offenders in Adult Facilities are as follows:
i. Currently, only three functional Borstal Institutions exist in Nigeria, which are grossly inadequate to serve the entire country. These Borstal institutions are located in Kaduna (North West), Abeokuta (South West), and Ilorin (North Central).
ii. Many States lack operational remand homes, leaving child offenders with no alternative but to be housed in adult correctional facilities.
iii. Also, some States have neither Borstal Institutions nor Remand Homes, meaning that juveniles in conflict with the law are routinely detained in adult facilities, exposing them to abuse and criminal influences.
iv. There is also the issue of Lack of Proper Age Verification Mechanisms, where in the absence of birth registration or reliable documentation, many juveniles are wrongly classified as adults and detained accordingly.
v. Insufficient collaboration between courts, relevant stakeholders and correctional authorities, results in poor case management and failure to divert children from the adult system.
To address this issue, there is a need for stronger collaboration between the Judiciary, correctional services, and child welfare agencies, to ensure that children are properly identified and placed in appropriate rehabilitation facilities. Additionally, State Governments must prioritise the establishment and operationalisation of Remand Homes, Approved Children Institutions and Borstal Institutions, to prevent further violations of children’s rights.
Statistics show that out of 79,863 inmates in Nigerian Correctional Centres, there are only 26,571 convicts. Why do we have an overwhelming number of 53,292 awaiting trail inmates? Where can we place the problem, the Police, the Prosecutors/Ministries of Justice, Interior, or the Judiciary?
This high rate of pretrial detention clearly underscores the urgent need for criminal justice reforms. The issue is systemic, with multiple contributing factors linked to the police, prosecuting agencies, the Judiciary, and correctional authorities.
Key factors resulting in the High number of Awaiting Trial Population include –
1. Slow Judicial Processes and Case Backlogs
The judicial system in Nigeria is heavily congested, with courts overwhelmed by an excessive number of cases. Many trials take years due to inefficiencies, inadequate manpower, and procedural delays. The lack of strict adherence to timelines for case disposal under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) results in prolonged detentions.
2. Frequent Adjournments and Limited Legal Representation
Frequent adjournments are common due to absenteeism by prosecutors, defence counsel, or Judges. The high cost of legal representation prevents many indigent Defendants from securing Lawyers, leaving them without proper defence. The Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON) is underfunded, and unable to provide sufficient pro bono legal representation to indigent inmates.
3. Poor Case Management by Law Enforcement and Prosecuting Agencies
The Police often arrest individuals without proper investigation, leading to prolonged detention without trial. Lack of coordination between law enforcement and the prosecutorial departments, means that many cases do not progress in a timely manner. The Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) sometimes delays issuing legal advice, leaving suspects in detention for extended periods.
4. Limited Access to Bail for Indigent Defendants
Many detainees qualify for bail, but remain incarcerated due to their inability to meet bail conditions, which often require financial sureties or property ownership. Magistrates and Judges are often reluctant to grant bail, particularly in capital offences, even when suspects have spent excessive time in detention. Enforcement of non-custodial measures, as provided under the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019 and the ACJA 2015, remains weak.
5. Weak Oversight and Lack of Coordination Among Key Stakeholders
The Judiciary, Ministry of Interior and Nigerian Correctional Service that can facilitate the decongestion of correctional centres, have limited mechanisms to ensure detainees are not held beyond reasonable time. There is also insufficient data-sharing between correctional facilities, courts, and law enforcement agencies, further contributing to case stagnation.
6. Non implementation of Section 12(4-12) of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019 which requires the In-charge correctional centres and the State Controllers to trigger an early warning signal by notifying the State Chief Judge, State Attorney-General, State Prerogative of Mercy etc whenever the correctional centre population has exceeded (or about to exceed) the centre’s designated capacity, and provides mechanisms to reduce the population and thus, prevent overcrowding.
With regard who is responsible, the problem of prolonged pretrial detention is systemic, and can be attributed to multiple institutions in Nigeria’s criminal justice system:
All players within the justice sector are responsible. The Police, for instance, contribute in the role they play in arresting and detaining individuals without proper investigation or strong evidence. Failing to conclude investigations in a timely manner.
The Prosecutors and Ministries of Justice contribute theirs, in the delays encountered in filing charges, issuing legal advice, and prosecuting cases. Poor case management also leads to prolonged detentions.
On the part of the Judiciary, you see issues around Case backlogs, frequent adjournments, and failure to grant bail or enforce speedy trial provisions of the ACJA 2015.
On the part of the Ministry of Interior and Nigerian Correctional Service, there are issues around lack of enforcement of non-custodial measures and ineffective custodial centre decongestion strategies and the non-implementation of the Section 12(4-12) of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019.
To reduce the high population of awaiting trial inmates, a multi-pronged approach is required:
1. Fast-Tracking Cases and Reducing Court Delays; Enforce strict timelines for case disposal, in line with ACJA provisions; Introduce special courts to handle pretrial detention cases expeditiously; Establish Judiciary Monitoring Committees to track case progress.
2. Strengthening Legal Aid Services; Increase funding and capacity for the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON) to provide more pro bono legal representation.
3. Improving Police Investigation and Prosecutorial Efficiency – Train Police Officers and prosecutors on proper case management; Enforce stricter guidelines on arrests and pretrial detentions, ensuring cases proceed to trial faster.
4. Expanding Non-Custodial Measures: Increase the use of bail, electronic tagging, probation, and community service instead of detaining non-violent offenders. Establish monitoring mechanisms, to ensure non-custodial measures are effectively implemented.
5. Strengthening Oversight Mechanisms: Make Magistrates’ visits to detention facilities (as provided for in Section 34 of the ACJA 2015) more effective, by ensuring cases of prolonged detention are reviewed. Enhance data-sharing mechanisms among law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional facilities for better case tracking.
The overwhelming number of awaiting trial inmates in Nigeria’s correctional facilities is a clear failure of multiple institutions, including the Police, Judiciary, and prosecutorial agencies. Without urgent reforms, pretrial detention will continue to drive overcrowding and human rights violations. A holistic approach that includes legal reforms, judicial efficiency, better Police investigations, and non-custodial sentencing is essential to addressing this crisis.
The Correctional Centres are seriously overcrowded and many inmates are reported to be HIV positive, as well as having other debilitating and contagious diseases. They are also seriously malnourished. What kind of medical facilities are available to inmates? Are the any mental health services for inmates who may require mental health support? What is the suicide rate in Nigerian prisons? What do NGOs like PRAWA do to assist in the address of these medical issues?
Nigerian Correctional Centres lack adequate medical facilities, drugs and health personnel. Some are reported to be suffering from HIV, tuberculosis, malnutrition, and mental illnesses. We do not have data on Suicide rates in Correctional Centres. Recently, PRAWA in partnership with the Nigerian Correctional Service, and National Association of Clinical Psychologists with the support of International IDEA held a capacity building workshop in Benin City, Edo State in November 2024 on Mental Health and Justice, including enhancing Mental Health in Correctional Centre. The Association of Psychiatrists in Nigeria, also attended. We are working on expanding this, as well as the full implementation of Section 24 of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019 which, amongst other things, provides for the establishment of State Mental Health Board for correctional service. Members of the State Mental Health Board have been appointed, and Mental Health Guidelines/Protocols already developed. There are also more ongoing and planned interventions on this, to ensure they achieve the needed impact. Also, PRAWA, with the support of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), has since 1998 been providing interventions on rehabilitation of torture victims including inmates, ex-inmates and youths at risks. We are also working to encourage other health professionals to support the Nigerian Correctional Service in whatever way they can. There are also some other NGOs and Faith Based Organisations that provide some medical support to the Nigerian Correctional Service. What will be most helpful, will be a more comprehensive and sustainable strategy regarding this. This is what we are currently advocating.
Do you agree with the suggestion that private companies and individual business people be licensed to build and operate Correctional Centres?
The privatisation of correctional facilities remains a highly controversial topic, with both advantages and significant risks. While some argue that private-sector involvement could lead to better infrastructure, efficiency, and reduced Government expenditure, there are serious concerns about human rights abuses, profit-driven motives, and lack of oversight. Some of the reports we have received in some of the countries where some of these has been piloted such South Africa and the UK do not excite us.
Arguments for privatisation of Correctional Facilities include the fact that, Private investment could lead to better-equipped correctional centres with modern facilities. And also, the benefit that Governments could reduce financial burdens by outsourcing prison management, while focusing on policy and oversight. And, that the private sector might introduce better rehabilitation, vocational training, and reintegration programmes for inmates.
Arguments Against Privatisation of Correctional Centres, buttress the issue of Profit over rehabilitation that private companies may prioritise profit over inmate welfare, leading to cost-cutting on healthcare, nutrition, and security. Issues around Human rights concerns, that without strong regulation and oversight, there could be severe human rights violations due to forced labour, poor treatment, and lack of rehabilitation focus.
Accountability and corruption risks: Increased risk of corruption, where profit motives lead to overcrowding (keeping more inmates for financial gain), or abuse of power by private operators.
Issues around Ethical concerns: The fact that the justice system should be focused on rehabilitation, not profit-making, which may create perverse incentives to maintain high incarceration rates.
Lately, there have been different scandals concerning Nigerian Correctional Centres. First, one in which cross-dresser Bobrisky was alleged to have claimed that he stayed ‘off-campus’ in an apartment instead of within Kirikiri Correctional Centre, and the recent appalling news report that inmates in Warri Correctional Centre, Delta State, find a way of coming out to commit robberies in Edo State, have placed many in a state of shock and worry. Obviously, both scenarios cannot be achieved without the connivance of Prison Officials. Can this be true? Kindly, comment on this
You may be aware that the Honourable Minister of Interior, Dr Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, set up a 5-Member Investigative Panel on Alleged Corruption and Other Violations Against the Nigerian Correctional Service. The Chairperson of the Investigative Panel is Dr Magdalene Ajani (the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Interior). I am the Secretary of the Investigative Panel. We investigated the allegation about the cross-dresser, and found no evidence supporting the allegation. We saw a lot of evidence indicating that he stayed in Correctional Centre, but that he was availed several privileges. In our first phase report, we stated clearly our findings, and the fact that the second phase of the Panel’s work we are looking into these privileges and other other issues to identify and investigate issues of systemic corruption, and make appropriate recommendations.
I read a communication from the Nigeria Police Force, denying the news about the alleged robberies by some inmates in Warri. These and other allegations, need to be thoroughly investigated. If it is found that they are fake news intentionally perpetrated by some persons, they should be duly prosecuted to deter others. Someone told me that fake sensational news, helps drive social media follower-ship.
There is also the allegation that a good number of Correctional Centre Officials are corrupt, and allow inmates all sorts of privileges including conjugal visits, all for a price. Is there any truth in this allegation? How decent are the conditions of service of Correctional Facility Officers?
There have been allegations that point to the prevalence of corruption in the Nigerian correctional centres, such as:
i. Bribery for privileges such that Inmates with financial means can pay for – better living conditions, access to mobile phones, better food, or even unauthorised movement outside the facility.
ii. Illegal conjugal visits – While Nigeria does not officially allow conjugal visits, there are allegations reporting that some inmates gain access to such privileges through bribes.
iii. Smuggling of contraband – Corrupt officials enable the entry of drugs, mobile phones, and weapons into correctional facilities, compromising security and discipline.
All of the above and others, are part of the focus of the Investigative Panel. Let’s wait to have the Panel conclude its investigations to have a clearer view of the actual situation on ground and ensure that swift and effective actions are taken to address any observed violations.
Conditions of Service for Correctional Officers?
The low wages and poor working conditions of correctional officers contribute to corruption. Key challenges faced by officers include:
i. Low salaries that are insufficient, compared to the risks and responsibilities of the job
II. Inadequate training and resources, making it difficult to effectively manage security and rehabilitation programmes.
iii. Poor working conditions with overcrowded facilities, high-stress environments, and lack of mental health support for officers.
To reduce corruption there should be:
a. Better remuneration and incentives for correctional officers, to reduce vulnerability to bribery.
b. Improved training and professionalisation, to instil ethical standards and security awareness.
c. Regular security audits and surprise inspections, to detect and eliminate corrupt practices.
d. Strict penalties and prosecution for officers found guilty of misconduct. In fact, effective oversight is needed, which increases the certainty of detection of most (if not all) corrupt practices.
What can you say about the almost frequent prison breaks, which have become a recurrent decimal in Nigeria? Is it that the Facilities are no longer secure?
There is a lot that can be done to prevent this, including the urgent and effective implementation of Section 28 of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019. This includes the provision of adequate security gadgets, and fortification of correctional centres. Key on this, is also the proper risks and needs assessments of all inmates upon admission into custodial centres, and the proper designation of correctional centres and application of appropriate correctional regimes according to the risk level of the inmates and the security designation of the correctional centres.
You just attended a meeting of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in Geneva, Switzerland. What were the highlights of the meeting? How good or bad is Nigeria’s record regarding torturing of suspects, detainees and inmates by law enforcement agencies?
This is the 55th Session of the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT). I am a member of the subcommittee. The subcommittee is made up of 25 experts elected by the UN (Member countries that have signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture, Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment – OPCAT). The mandate of the subcommittee, amongst other things, is to visit all places of deprivation of liberty in all countries of the world – these include Police cells, prisons, migration centres, social care homes, psychiatric homes, etc.
During this recent meeting we prepared/reviewed our annual work-plan, engaged State parties and other relevant stakeholders; held regional training for national preventive mechanisms, received reports of country visits conducted by the SPT, etc.
