Pretrial Issues Under The Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2015 – Reform & Recommendations (Part 1)

BY LYDIA EHISUORIA OHONSI

The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 addresses the issue of pre-trial parade of suspects primarily through a recent amendment which explicitly abolishes the public parade of suspects before the media by security agencies. This is embodied in Section 9(a) of the amended Lagos State ACJL, which states:

“As from the commencement of this law, the police shall refrain from parading any suspect before the media.”

This reform aims to uphold the constitutional rights of suspects, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty as guaranteed under Sections 34 and 36(4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. The amendment is intended to prevent the violation of suspects’ rights to dignity, fair hearing, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. Before this reform, pre-trial media parades were common, often prejudging suspects and violating their fundamental rights under both the Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Reforms and Recommendations on Pre-Trial Parade in ACJL 2015:

The Lagos State House of Assembly added the provision banning public media parades of suspects in the ACJL amendment to curb the practice.

This provision requires police and security agencies to stop parading suspects before the media at any stage before trial.

Legal experts and human rights advocates recommend strict enforcement of this provision, including sanctions for violations, to protect suspects from psychological and mental torture, and uphold fair trial rights.

Calls for further public and judicial awareness are made to ensure this reform is respected on all law enforcement levels.

This reform aligns with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards and represents a significant step in protecting suspects’ rights in Lagos State during pre-trial

The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 addresses the abolition of stay of proceedings mainly in:

Sections relevant to stay of proceedings:

Section 273 ACJL 2015: Explicitly abolishes the stay of proceedings in criminal trials.

Similarly, provisions consistent with Section 306 of the Federal Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which states that applications for stay of proceedings in criminal matters shall not be entertained, have been domesticated in Lagos ACJL.

Context and reforms:

The abolition aims to eliminate the frequent and abusive use of interlocutory applications such as stay of proceedings to suspend trials and cause delays.

This reform is intended to promote speedy trials and prevent accused persons from exploiting procedural delays to frustrate justice.

However, it has been noted that while genuine preliminary objections are important and may terminate frivolous charges, the outright ban on stay applications may sometimes conflict with defendants’ constitutional rights.

Recommendations for reform include a review of Section 374 ACJL to allow trial courts to determine preliminary objections without necessarily staying proceedings and providing for interlocutory rulings that do not halt the trial process unless the objection succeeds and terminates the case.

Judicial discretion to stay proceedings suo motu (without application) in exceptional cases for the interest of justice is also seen as necessary to protect the judiciary’s integrity.

In summary, Section 273 ACJL abolishes stay of proceedings to prevent delays, but reforms suggest nuanced provisions allowing interlocutory rulings without automatic stays, balancing speedy trial with defendants’ rights.

The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 addresses trial in absentia primarily in:

Sections on Trial in Absentia

Section 235 ACJL 2015 (as amended): Allows trial and conviction of a defendant in absentia when the defendant (a) has been granted bail but fails to attend court without reasonable explanation, (b) remains absent after two court adjournments, and (c) has been duly served or summonsed. The court may proceed with trial and enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant if absent without reasonable excuse.

The court must defer sentencing until the defendant is re-arrested or surrenders, ensuring the sentencing only occurs when the accused is present physically again.

Recommendations for Substituted Service

The ACJL recognizes service of criminal charges on the defendant’s lawyer as valid.

Experts recommend adding provisions for substituted service such as pasting court/process documents on the defendant’s last known address when personal service is impracticable or the defendant is evading service.

This would strengthen the ability to bring suspects who abscond to trial fairly without violating their constitutional rights under fair hearing.

Amending Section 235 to explicitly provide for substituted service mechanisms is suggested to close gaps in securing the accused’s presence or knowledge of proceedings.

In summary, Section 235 ACJL 2015 permits trial in absentia with safeguards such as mandatory bail grant previously, reasonable excuses for absence, and deferred sentencing. Recommendations to enhance the law include formalizing substituted service by posting process to the defendant’s last known address when personal service fails

The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 does not explicitly provide for the use of lay police prosecutors as authorized prosecutors in court.

Key Provisions and Interpretations on Police Prosecutors:

The general principle derived from similar provisions in the Federal Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and reflected in the Lagos ACJL is that only qualified legal practitioners (lawyers) are authorized to prosecute criminal cases in court.

Section 106 of the Federal ACJA 2015 is influential here and is commonly applied by analogy in Lagos: it restricts the right of prosecution to qualified legal practitioners such as the Attorney-General, Law Officers, or lawyers authorized by law. Lay police officers who are not legal practitioners are generally prohibited from prosecuting cases.

Lay police officers (non-lawyer police personnel) may have the role of investigation and filing First Information Reports (FIRs), but they cannot conduct prosecutions in court unless they are qualified legal practitioners.

This interpretation reflects a shift towards professionalizing the prosecutorial function for better efficiency, competence, and protection of defendants’ rights.

Where police officers prosecute, they must be legally qualified; otherwise, a lawyer must be assigned to conduct prosecutions.

Recommendations:

The Lagos ACJL system should enforce existing provisions strictly to ensure that all prosecutions in court are handled by trained lawyers rather than lay police prosecutors to enhance the quality and fairness of trials.

Training and capacity-building for police officers should emphasize investigative roles, with prosecutorial functions reserved for qualified lawyers.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Lagos Attorney-General’s office should supervise prosecution assignments to prevent lay police officers from conducting court prosecutions.

In summary, the ACJL aligns with the principle that prosecution of offences must be undertaken by trained legal practitioners, not lay police prosecutors, ensuring a more professional and rights-compliant criminal justice process.

The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 provides clear provisions for magistrates’ oversight functions over police stations and detention facilities to ensure lawful detention and protection of suspects’ rights.

Relevant Sections:

Section 33 ACJL 2015: Requires the officer in charge of a police station or authorized agency to submit monthly reports to the nearest magistrate detailing all suspects arrested without warrant, including whether bail was granted or refused. The magistrate forwards these reports to the Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee for analysis and recommendation.

Section 34 ACJL 2015: Empowers the Chief Magistrate or a magistrate designated by the Chief Judge to conduct at least monthly inspections of police stations and other detention facilities (except prisons) within their jurisdiction. During visits, magistrates may:

Call for and inspect arrest records.

Direct the arraignment of suspects.

Where bail has been refused, grant bail if the offence is within their jurisdiction.

Officers in charge of police stations must provide full access to records and facilities during these inspections.

Reforms and Recommendations:

Strengthen enforcement of these provisions to ensure regular and meaningful magistrate inspections of police stations and detention centers.

Provide magistrates with clear authority and resources to conduct surprise inspections and immediate remedial actions, including ordering the release or bail of unlawfully detained suspects.

Enhance training and capacity-building for magistrates on human rights and detention laws to improve oversight quality.

Establish robust reporting and follow-up mechanisms with consequences for facilities or officers that violate detainee rights.

Encourage public awareness of magistrate oversight roles to promote accountability in police detention practices.

These measures aim to promote transparency, prevent unlawful detention and abuse of suspects, and uphold fair trial rights under Lagos ACJL 2015. The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 sets out magistrates’ oversight functions over police stations and detention facilities mainly in these sections:

Section 33 ACJL requires officers in charge of police stations or authorized agencies to report monthly to the nearest magistrate on all suspects arrested without warrant, including whether bail was granted or refused. The magistrate forwards these reports to the Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee for analysis and recommendations.

Section 34 ACJL empowers the Chief Magistrate or a designated magistrate to conduct at least monthly inspections of police stations and detention centers (other than prisons) within their jurisdiction. During inspections, magistrates may inspect arrest records, direct arraignment of suspects, and grant bail where appropriate for offences within their jurisdiction. Police officers must provide full records and facilities for inspection.

Reforms and Recommendations:

Enforce regular monthly magistrate inspections meaningfully to ensure lawful detention and bail decisions.

Empower magistrates with authority and resources for surprise inspections, immediate remedial actions including ordering release or bail.

Train magistrates on human rights and detention provisions to improve oversight quality.

Strengthen reporting and follow-up systems with penalties for unlawful detentions or rights violations.

Increase public knowledge of magistrate oversight to enhance police accountability.

These provisions seek to protect detainees’ rights, prevent unlawful detention, and uphold the rule of law in Lagos State criminal justice administration.

Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 mandates the electronic recording of confessional statements of accused persons primarily in:

Section 9(3) ACJL 2015:

This section explicitly requires that every confessional statement must be recorded by video so that it can be played as evidence to show the circumstances under which it was taken.

The video recording allows observation of the accused’s demeanor to determine whether the confession was made voluntarily.

Where video recording facilities are not available, the confessional statement must be in writing and taken in the presence of the accused’s legal counsel of choice.

This provision makes electronic recording mandatory and safeguards the rights of suspects against coerced or false confessions.

Related Sections from the Federal ACJA 2015 (for corroboration):

Sections 15(4) and 17(1) & (2) of the Federal ACJA 2015 use the language “may be recorded electronically,” which has led to some judicial conflict about whether electronic recording is optional or mandatory. However, Lagos ACJL uses stronger language requiring recording, reflecting a stricter standard.

The Nigerian Supreme Court has ruled recently that failure to electronically record confessional statements as required invalidates those confessions.

Reforms and Recommendations:

Enforcement of Section 9(3) ACJL should be guaranteed with no exceptions to strengthen suspects’ constitutional rights to fair treatment during investigation.

Police and investigation agencies should be equipped with video recording devices in all interview and interrogation settings.

Judicial officers should exclude confessional statements from evidence if electronic recording is absent or when the procedure is not followed.

Legal practitioners and civil society organizations should conduct public awareness and training to ensure compliance with these standards.

These provisions and reforms are aimed at preventing torture, forced confessions, and miscarriages of justice by safeguarding the integrity of confessional evidence through mandatory electronic recording under Lagos ACJL 2015.

The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 contains detailed provisions on bail and remand primarily in Part 12 of the law, covering the following key sections:

Relevant Sections on Bail and Remand:

Section 115 ACJL 2015: Deals with the general grant of bail. It provides that a person shall be granted bail unless there are compelling reasons not to do so, such as risk of flight or interference with witnesses.

Section 116 ACJL 2015: Covers security for bail, including the requirement for sureties and conditions for bail bonds.

Section 117 ACJL 2015: Makes special provision for recognizance in respect of children.

Section 118 ACJL 2015: Details qualifications and number of sureties needed for bail.

Other sections within this part address the procedure for bail applications, the conditions the court can impose, and the rights of the accused to be considered for bail.

Common Issues Noted:

Abuse of remand orders leading to indefinite detention without trial.

Magistrates often rubber-stamp police requests for remand without strict compliance to timelines.

Lack of effective monitoring leading to violations of the rights of detainees awaiting trial.

Recommended Reforms:

Enforce strict adherence to the timelines for remand orders and require magistrates to fully scrutinize applications for remand.

Introduce sanctions or penalties for abuse or overruns of lawful remand periods.

Promote alternatives to remand, such as bail with reasonable surety conditions, to minimize pre-trial detention.

Strengthen judicial and police training on the legal standards for bail and remand under ACJL.

Enhance monitoring mechanisms by the Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee or other oversight bodies to track remand cases and ensure compliance.

Facilitate ease of bail application processing and educate the public and legal practitioners on bail rights.

This balanced approach aims to protect individual liberty while safeguarding the justice system’s interest in preventing flight risks and maintaining order.

Source: BarristerNG