5. Law Enforcement: Fagbemi on Prison Decongestion

Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, Nigeria’s Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, has placed prison decongestion at the centre of a broader law-enforcement and justice-sector reform agenda, charging a newly inaugurated legal-aid body in August 2026 to accelerate the trials of awaiting-trial inmates and strengthen representation for indigent citizens.

The intervention goes to the heart of one of Nigeria’s most persistent constitutional and humanitarian failures: thousands of people remain in correctional custody for prolonged periods without a completed trial, many unable to afford counsel, secure bail, or navigate a court system burdened by adjournments, weak investigation practices and inadequate coordination among criminal-justice institutions.

For Mr. Fagbemi, the task is not merely administrative. It is a test of whether Nigeria’s correctional centres can operate as genuinely reformative institutions rather than warehouses for poor, unrepresented and legally invisible defendants.

Context and Background

Nigeria’s correctional system has long struggled with congestion, particularly in facilities originally designed for far smaller populations. The problem is not limited to convicted prisoners. A substantial share of those held in custody are awaiting-trial persons: individuals charged with offences, remanded by a court, or held while investigators and prosecutors determine whether they have sufficient evidence to proceed.

In principle, remand is an exceptional and temporary measure. In practice, it can become an extended condition of detention. A suspect may be arrested without prompt access to a lawyer; police investigations may be incomplete; case files may not reach the prosecuting authority; witnesses may fail to attend court; and courts may repeatedly adjourn matters because of overloaded dockets, prison transport difficulties or the absence of legal counsel.

The result is that pre-trial detention often falls disproportionately on poor Nigerians. A defendant with financial resources may quickly retain a lawyer, apply for bail and challenge procedural lapses. An indigent defendant may lack the means even to obtain certified court records, contact relatives, or understand the charges brought against them.

It is within this setting that Mr. Fagbemi’s directive to the newly inaugurated Legal Aid Board carries significance. Nigeria’s statutory legal-aid architecture is principally associated with the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, established under the Legal Aid Act 2011. Whether described as a board, council or newly constituted governing body, the institution’s mandate is rooted in a simple proposition: access to justice should not depend solely on wealth.

The Attorney-General’s charge reportedly focused on two connected objectives: fast-tracking cases involving persons held pending trial, and ensuring effective legal representation for indigent citizens. Those objectives are inseparable. A court cannot fairly assess bail, evaluate the legality of detention, test the prosecution’s evidence or enforce trial timelines if an accused person has no meaningful advocate.

“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal.” — Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), section 36(1).

A Human Rights and Security Challenge

Correctional congestion is frequently described as a prison-management problem. That description is incomplete. It is also a human-rights issue, a public-health issue and a security issue.

Overcrowded facilities strain access to sanitation, healthcare, nutrition, education, vocational training and mental-health support. They increase the risk of communicable disease and compound the trauma of detention. They also make classification difficult: defendants awaiting trial may be housed in conditions that expose them to hardened offenders, despite not having been convicted of any crime.

From a security perspective, overcrowding can produce tension, violence and institutional instability. It weakens the capacity of correctional officers to supervise inmates safely and undermines rehabilitation programmes meant to reduce reoffending. A system that holds people for years without conclusion may also erode public confidence in the police, courts and government itself.

The language of “decongestion” must therefore be understood carefully. It cannot mean indiscriminate release. It must mean lawful, evidence-based and court-supervised decisions: prompt trials where prosecutions are viable; bail where legally appropriate; discharge where detention has become unlawful or the state cannot justify continuing to hold a defendant; diversion for minor offences; and non-custodial sanctions where they better serve justice and public safety.

Legal and Policy Analysis

The legal basis for urgent action is already present in Nigeria’s constitutional and statutory framework. The central problem is less the absence of law than uneven enforcement, limited institutional capacity and failures of coordination.

Constitutional Guarantees and the Presumption of Innocence

Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution protects the right to personal liberty. It permits detention in defined circumstances, including lawful arrest on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct and detention pursuant to a court order. But it also imposes safeguards against arbitrary or indefinite confinement.

Under section 35(4), a person arrested or detained must be brought before a court within a “reasonable time,” with the Constitution defining that concept by reference to the availability of a court within a specified distance. Section 35(5) further recognises that an accused person is entitled to release on bail where they are not tried within a reasonable period, subject to the nature of the allegation and the interests of justice.

Equally important is section 36(5), which entrenches the presumption of innocence.

“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.” — Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), section 36(5).

That presumption is not ceremonial language. It should shape the treatment of every awaiting-trial inmate. Pre-trial detention cannot become punishment by delay. A person who has not been convicted should not, through institutional inertia, serve a period in custody longer than the sentence that might ultimately be imposed.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, commonly known as the ACJA, was designed to address many of the procedural defects that fuel congestion in federal criminal cases and has influenced reforms in several states. Its stated purpose includes promoting efficient criminal-justice administration, speedy trials, protection of society and effective management of criminal conduct.

Its provisions on remand proceedings are particularly relevant. Sections 293 to 296 establish procedures for remand applications where a court may lack jurisdiction to try the substantive offence. The framework was intended to prevent remand orders from becoming open-ended. It requires judicial oversight and sets conditions under which a defendant must be brought back before the court, discharged, or otherwise dealt with if prosecutorial steps are not taken within stipulated periods.

Section 396 also seeks to curb avoidable delays after arraignment by requiring expeditious trial management and limiting adjournments. Yet statutory deadlines have limited practical value when prosecutors appear without case files, investigators fail to attend court, or defendants are transported late—or not at all—from correctional facilities.

Mr. Fagbemi’s call should therefore be measured against practical questions: Are legal-aid lawyers assigned at the earliest stage? Are remand warrants digitally tracked? Are prosecutors reviewing old dockets? Are police investigators accountable for incomplete files? Are magistrates regularly reviewing remand populations? And are courts empowered with the staff and technology needed to hear cases efficiently?

From “Prisons” to Correctional Service

The Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019 formally reflected a policy shift away from the old prison-centred conception of custody. The law emphasises correction, rehabilitation, reintegration and non-custodial measures. It recognises that incarceration is not the only legitimate response to offending, particularly for minor, non-violent and first-time offenders.

Its promise, however, depends on investment. Probation services, community service, restorative justice programmes, educational opportunities and vocational training cannot function effectively as mere provisions on paper. Nor can correctional officers be expected to deliver reformative outcomes in facilities operating far beyond capacity.

Legal aid has a crucial role in making these alternatives real. A competent lawyer can identify when a charge is improperly framed, when bail conditions are excessive, when a defendant may qualify for diversion, or when the prosecution’s delay violates constitutional safeguards. Legal aid can also help inmates pursue appeals, plea negotiations, family contact and access to welfare services.

Institutional Responsibilities Beyond Legal Aid

While the Legal Aid Board can be an important catalyst, it cannot decongest correctional centres alone. The responsibility is shared among the Federal Ministry of Justice, state ministries of justice, the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigerian Correctional Service, the judiciary, the National Human Rights Commission, the Nigerian Bar Association and civil-society organisations.

The police must improve investigation quality and reduce unnecessary arrests for matters that are civil, regulatory or capable of mediation. Prosecutors must promptly review case files and discontinue cases that lack evidentiary foundation. Courts must actively manage proceedings and rigorously scrutinise applications for remand. Correctional authorities must maintain accurate records of inmates, court dates, warrants and eligibility for review.

There is also a strong case for regular custodial case-review panels, involving judges, prosecutors, legal-aid lawyers and correctional officials. Such panels can identify persons held beyond statutory remand periods, detainees with no formal charge, inmates eligible for bail, and cases in which the state has failed to take basic prosecutorial steps.

Technology can assist, but only if it is tied to accountability. A unified digital case-management system linking police stations, prosecutors, courts and correctional centres could flag expired remand orders, missed hearings and prolonged detention. It could also provide the data needed for public reporting: how many awaiting-trial inmates there are, how long they have been held, what offences they are accused of, and why their cases have not been concluded.

Impact and Future Outlook

If implemented seriously, Mr. Fagbemi’s initiative could produce benefits extending far beyond prison walls. Faster and fairer case resolution would reduce pressure on correctional facilities, improve conditions for those who must remain in custody, and enable correctional authorities to focus resources on rehabilitation rather than containment.

The economic implications are also substantial. Prolonged detention removes breadwinners, apprentices, traders and workers from households already vulnerable to inflation, unemployment and insecurity. Families often incur travel costs, informal legal expenses and lost income while trying to support detained relatives. Children may leave school; small businesses may collapse; and communities may become more distrustful of the state.

At the same time, justice delayed imposes costs on victims and witnesses. A credible decongestion policy must not treat speed as a substitute for accountability. Victims of serious offences deserve properly investigated cases, protection where necessary, and trials that reach lawful conclusions. The goal is not to abandon prosecution; it is to ensure that prosecutions are timely, fair and based on evidence.

The enduring test will be whether the Attorney-General’s directive results in measurable institutional change: more lawyers at police stations and remand courts; fewer persons detained without charge; more frequent judicial reviews; improved bail practices; stronger use of non-custodial sentences; and published data that allows the public to judge progress.

Lateef Fagbemi, SAN has framed decongestion as part of the transformation of Nigeria’s correctional system into a reformative institution. That ambition is legally sound and socially necessary. But it will require sustained funding, judicial independence, professional investigation, prosecutorial discipline and a legal-aid system capable of reaching citizens before delay hardens into injustice.

For Nigeria, the question is not whether its laws recognise liberty, fair hearing and dignity. They do. The question is whether the institutions entrusted with those principles will make them real for the people most likely to be forgotten behind correctional walls.