Holding Charge Syndrome; A Challenge In The Administration Of Criminal Justice In Nigeria

Project and Seminar Material for Law

Holding Charge Syndrome; A Challenge In The Administration Of Criminal Justice In Nigeria


Abstract


The criminal justice system revolves around three cardinal institutions: the police, court and prison. These institutions are partners in our failing criminal justice system, due to some practices that are inimical to the interest of society. Thus, the incalculable harm being wrecked on the Nigerian criminal justice system by the holding charge practice cannot be justified. Holding charge which involves the bringing of a suspect before an inferior Court that lacks jurisdiction to try him or her for the primary purpose of securing a remand order, in order to look for a prima facie evidence in support of the allegation against the suspect and thereafter abandon him or her in prison under the pretext of awaiting trial, leaves one to wonder whether the presumption of innocence is tenable in Nigeria. Holding Charge Syndrome

This is because under this practice, an accused is presumed guilty until he or she proves his innocence. Also, the crisis of congestion in our prison is the result of the holding charge practice. It is trite, that jurisdiction is the life-wire of any litigation whether civil or criminal and the base on which adjudication rest. It follows that there is obviously an anomaly in bringing a suspect for remand before a magistrate who has no power to impose penalty for the indictable offence allegedly committed by the suspect. Therefore, the practice by magistrate courts who lacked Jurisdiction in indictable offence, but goes on to remand the suspect under holding charge have been considered unconstitutional, because it is a threat to the accused person’s rights to personal liberty, dignity, and fair hearing granted by the 1999 constitution (as amended). However, some states laws have given the magistrate court the impetus to continue with this harmful practice without regard to the provisions of the grundnorm.

Consequently, this research work, in chapter one will take a look at the historical inception of holding charge; chapter two will focus on the meaning of the monster called holding charge, the reason for its adoption and the illegality. Chapter three will discuss on the rights of accused persons and how holding charge have thwarted its realization. Chapter four will examine the effect of holding charge in the criminal justice administration in Nigeria. The last chapter contains observation and recommendation, mainly on abrogation of all the laws that gave magistrate courts powers to remand suspects on indictable offences even when they have no jurisdiction.


Chapter One


General Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

Before an accused is brought before the Court it should be assumed that the case is ripe for hearing, not for further investigation. He must not be there on mere suspicion, which cannot be regarded as reasonable suspicious under the constitution. If there can be no sensible and prima facie inferences that can be drawn that an offence has been committed then the accused cannot be deprived of his liberty even for a second. There cannot be a ‘holding charge” hanging over an accused in Court pending the completion of investigations into the case against him1

Also, Niki Tobi in Onagoruwa v. State2, stated as follows:

In a good number of cases the police in this country rush to court on what they generally refer to as a “holding charge” ever before they conduct investigation. Where the investigation does not succeed in assembling the relevant evidence to prosecute the accused to secure conviction, the best discretion is to abandon the matter and throw in the towel. On no account should the prosecution go out of its way in search for evidence to prosecute when it is not there.

The decisions of the two justices excerpted above is pertinent in considering the police usual excuse that investigations are continuing while the suspect is kept away in perpetual detention. It is apparently one of the greatest forms of disservice to suspects, to have them brought before the courts and them proceed to investigate the allegations leveled against them. It is an indictment on the system of criminal administration and an affront to the course of justice.

The administration of criminal justice, involves three institutions, viz: the Nigerian police force, the courts and prison. The Nigerian Police Force is the product of the constitution3. One of the constitutional responsibilities of this body is to ensure that law and order are maintained in the society, and also to detect and prevent crimes4. Thus, when a crime is committed, the criminal justice process begins with the police, who have the primary obligation of investigating the criminal act and apprehending the offender5.

It follows therefore that the police are empowered by the statutes apart from their general duties of preservation of law and order, protection of life and property, enforcement of law and order, detecting and prevention of crimes also to persecute criminal cases in court. Thus, any police officer may conduct in person criminal prosecution before any court whether or not the information or complaint was laid in by the Attorney General of the Federation6

It should be noted that apart form some Tribunals established to try certain specialized offences especially during the military era in Nigeria, there are perhaps three levels of courts in Nigeria in which criminal proceedings may be instituted. These are the magistrates’ Courts, State High Courts and the Federal High Court.
Of these, it seems that it is only at the Magistrate Courts that the police commence criminal proceedings.

In the southern states of Nigeria for instance, criminal proceedings may be commenced in the Magistrates Courts by laying a complaint before a magistrate whether or not on Oath, that an offence has been committed,7 or by bringing a person arrested without a warrant before the Court upon a charge contained in a charge sheet specifying the name and occupation of the person charged, the charge against him and the time and place where the offence is alleged to have been committed8.

The main objects of these proceedings are two fold. The first is to bring the offender to the Court to face his trial,9 while the other object, as provided in section 78(b) of the C.P.A, is to bring to the notice of the accused the crime for which he is accused. From the above, it follows that majority of cases are prosecuted by the police at the Magistrate Court. Thus, immediately a complaint is received at the police station that a person has committed an offence, the suspect is arrested with or without a warrant and brought to the station pending further investigation into the case. At this stage, the police have two constitutional duties to perform in the smooth administration of justice. They are to grant bail to the suspect pending the completion of investigation into the case10, or if the alleged offence is of a serious nature in which bail cannot be granted to arraign the suspect in court within a reasonable time11.

By constitutional definitions12 reasonable time is one day where a competent Court exists within 40km radius of the place of arrest and in other circumstance, two days as the case may be. The essence of the above provisions is to ensure fair administration of criminal justice in the country, by respecting the accused person’s rights.

Unfortunately, these statutory safeguards have been abused by the men of the Nigerian police force with impunity. Thus, where an offence is committed and it is in the nature of a capital offence, say, attempted murder, murder, manslaughter or even treasonable felony, the police would ordinarily arrest such an offender. It is trite law that the police do not grant bail in capital offender. What they do in the circumstance is to arraign such offenders before a magistrate Court whom they are aware has no jurisdiction over capital offences. The magistrate would in turn, remand these suspects either in police or prison custody, pending when the police gather enough evidence on the offence allegedly committed, as well as pending when the matter is taken before a Court of competent jurisdiction. This is done under the ignoble practice of “holding charge”.

According to George O.S.A[13], a holding charge is brought about when the police are investigating a capital or other serious offence. In this situation the police are always faced with the constitutional provision of reasonable time within which to charge the matter to court as well as their legal incapacity of granting bail to the suspect when he could not be brought to court within time. But since the police are intent in keeping the suspect in detention pending investigation, the so-called holding charge is an apparent lawful response to the forgoing legal dilemma. What the police do as a result is to bring the suspect “before a Court of Law” as required by the constitution. But the Court, where the police head to, is that of summary jurisdiction, i.e a magistrate court which in law is incompetent to handle a capital crime. This ingenious approach is aimed at killing two birds with one stone: to remove the suspect from police custody and put him in prison custody through the instrumentality of a court of law, albeit a court of incompetent jurisdiction. By so doing, the police perceive themselves as not violating the law. Indeed, if there is any such violation, then the Magistrate’s Court should bear the responsibility, for the court, after all, should have declined jurisdiction and send back the suspect to police custody rather than remand him in prison custody.
Curiously, this unwholesome practice which the police adopts is permitted by an inferior law14 in Lagos the offending Law was s.236(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law of Lagos 1994 (now section 264 of the Criminal Justice Administration (Lagos state 2011) which allowed the Magistrate Court to remand offenders in indictable offences. Surprisingly also, the Supreme Court out of sentiment have upheld this practice in E.A Lufadeju & Anor. V. Evangelist Bayo Johnson15.

However, scholars have criticized this decision of the Supreme Court, and recommend that it should overrule itself when the opportunity presents itself16. Be it as it may, nothing can justify the incalculable harm being wrecked on the Nigeria Criminal Justice system by the holding charge17.


1.2 Statement of the Problem

… no citizen of this country ought to be detained in any cell (without being taken to a court of law) for more than 24 hours. We ought also to finally turn our backs on the colonial argument which saw every suspect as a criminal who must be detained17.

The terrible effects of pre-trial incarceration was captured by Galadima J. C. A. citing the decision in Hartage v. Hendrick18 taken from paragraph 5.2.10 of Appellant’s Brief in Bayo Johnson’s case in the following words:
The imprisonment of an accused prior to a determination of guilt is a rather awesome thing: it costs the taxpayers tremendous sums of money: it deprives the affected individual of his most precious freedom and liberty: It deprives him of his ability to support himself and his family, it quite possibly costs him his job, it restricts his ability to participate in his own defense, it subjects him to the dehumanization of prison, it separates him from his family and without trial, it casts over him an aura of criminal guilt.

Those very illuminating words clearly encapsulate the dilemma of the Awaiting Trial Prisoners (detained consequent upon a holding charge) in Nigeria. He is not anticipated and therefore not provided for in the nation’s budget and has to contend with the harsh realities of prison life. All these coupled with the fact that he may turn out to be innocent of the offences for which he is detained inevitably lead one to the points of interface between the regime of holding charge and fundamental human rights.

The utilization of the holding charge as a method of instituting criminal proceedings amounts to putting the cart before the horse.19 For, rather than carryout proper investigation, gather sufficient evidence and obtain proper professional legal advice before filling a charge, the police prosecutors merely arrest and rush to court on a “holding charge” and hope to stumble on sufficiently incriminating evidence subsequently. There is no proof of evidence against him while the “holding charge is continuously held against him like a sword of Damocles.20 Niki Tobi J.C.A21 expressed this sentiment in the following words:

It is not in my humble view, the function of the prosecutor… to rush a charge to a magistrate’s court which has no jurisdiction to try murder cases, and play for time while investigation is in progress. I have said it before and I will say it again that the unique police phraseology of a “holding charge” is not known to our criminal law and jurisprudence. It is either a charge or not. There is nothing like a ‘holding charge.22

It is unfortunate to observe that notwithstanding the criticism of this practice of holding charge by the police due to its negative implications in our criminal justice system, the practice still persist. It has been shown that those remanded by the orders of court accounted for about 50% of awaiting trial Persons (ATPs) in the country and consequently, a major cause of over crowding and congestion in our prisons.23

Without fear of contradiction, the consequences of the present system of administration of criminal justice at the lower bench in Nigerian are punitive and unfair to the accused person. It need not be emphasize that, by assuming jurisdiction in such cases where they are incompetent to do so, Magistrates Courts unwittingly aid the police to continue the detention of suspects under different nomenclature called prison custody, albeit brought about unlawfully.24

For instance, criminal suspects who are presumed innocent until the contrary is proved under the constitution25 are made prisoners through the machinery of the court under non existing law, and at times under an inferior law. This practice has created the problem where relevant provisions of the constitution (especially chapter four), which courts have the primary responsibility to enforce in any part of Nigeria to be under-enforced nay breached. Also following the practice of holding charge, the much touted prison decongestion is more congested than before in the execution of remand order of the learned magistrates.

As a rule, Awaiting Trial Persons (ATPs) constitute a significant percentage of the prison population.26 the most challenging aspect is that form the moment those remanded under holding charge steps into the confines of a prison, they are considered “a thing” beyond the fringe of humanity and, consequently, of humane treatment. They are beaten, harassed and visited with all kinds of indignities and outrages. Moreover, the sprawling prison system of Nigeria is not only infested with myriad of human rights violations, the entire structure seems, indeed, dependent on these violations for its very survival in its present, ugly form.

Little wonder Professor Adedokun Adeyemi27 has described the Nigerian prison system as lacking both deterrent and reformative value. Accordingly, it has become very costly to the economy, it is physiologically, psychologically and emotionally destructive, it is socially damaging, culturally abhorrent and penologically disastrous.28
Adeyemi’s views are supported by the assertion of H.S. Labo29 that:

…the vast majority of prison inmates belong to the 16-50 year old economically productive bracket most of whom remain in prison awaiting trial for many years, in a most de-humanizing condition…immense emotional and psychological stress are common antecedents of the custodial circumstances of imprisonment.

Finally, in making the remand order by Magistrate, most victims are not informed of the charge against them till they are docked. And the court has no inkling of the facts of the case save as read to the accused in the open court. This has been described as an unlawful court ordeal proceeding30.

In my humble view, this practice is a clear breach of law, derogation and affront to our constitution, which guarantees fundamental human rights,31 and provide for the procedures of treating criminal suspect in order to ensure fairness. Thus, is it my submission that magistrate court should not always hesitate in declining to make any order whatsoever in any holding charge proceeding. This is because the court has the primary responsibility to uphold fair and impartial proceeding in line with the extant laws to guarantee proper administration of justice. And it is trite law that a magistrate has no power to assume jurisdiction in capital offence, let alone make an order to remand can accused in prison or police custody.32


1.3 Research Question

Having studied the practice of holding charge, and how it have served as a clog in the wheel of effective and efficient administration of our criminal justice in Nigeria, the following questions have been formulated, with the hope to address them in the course of this research.

  1. What is the legality of taken a suspect accused of committing a capital offence to magistrate courts that have no jurisdiction in order to secure a remand order by the police?
  2. If the practice is illegal, then why is it still in practice?
  3. What is the attitude of the judiciary towards this practice in the course of interpreting the constitution and administering justice?
  4. What is the attitude of the executive arm of government who enforce the law as regards courts decision about the practice?
  5. What is the validity of states law that have legalize this practice vis-à-vis the constitution of Nigeria?
  6. What is the legality of remand orders by our magistrate courts on indictable offences which they lack the jurisdiction to entertain?
  7. Whether by the decision of the Supreme Court in E.A. Lufadeju and Anor v. Evangelist Bayo Johnson,33 it could be rightly said that the apex court approves holding charge practice.

1.4 Objective of the Study

It is my paramount objective in this research to do the followings:

  1. To examine the legal concept of holding charge and remand orders by magistrate courts.
  2. To examine holding charge as it affect human rights of a suspect as provided in our constitution.
  3. To unearth the difficulty posed by the practice of holding charge in the administration of criminal system in Nigeria.
  4. To state the constitutionality or otherwise of the holding charge syndrome.
  5. To examine the effect of holding charge to prison congestion and the inhuman conditions of prisoners under awaiting trial.
  6. To x-ray case laws and statutes in order to understating the courts’ view on the holding charge syndrome, and to proffer suggestions on how criminals in Nigeria should be dealt with.
  7. To provoke wider thoughts on better ways to safeguard the rights of the suspects as against what is obtainable under holding charge practice.
  8. To proffer solutions to all the problems identified during the research work.

1.5 Research Methodology

In this research work, the method mostly adopted is doctrinal method, though empirical method was partly adopted.

The doctrinal aspect involved reading of voluminous books written by different legal pundits, which reflects the essay topic. In addition, a reasonable number of other materials like workshop papers, journals, conference paper, articles presented in different places and occasions by legal scholars and human right activists mostly on criminal justice reform in Nigeria.

The empirical aspect involved visiting in-mates in the prisons to get relevant information from them which would be beneficial and helpful in the essay writing.


1.6 Relevance of the Study

The study of what the practice of holding charge is, and its effect on the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria is of utmost importance. According to the Human Rights Watch 34.

In numerous countries-including Bangladesh, Chad, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Uganda, Uruguay, and Venezuela-unsentenced prisoners make up the majority of the prison population. Such detainees may in many instances be held for years before being judged not guilty of the crime with which they were charged. They may even be imprisoned for periods longer than the sentences they would have served had they been found guilty. This state of affairs not only violates fundamental human rights norms it contributes significantly to prison overcrowding a problem that is itself at the root of numerous additional abuses.

The lengthy detention of unsentenced prisoners has its origin in two common phenomena; the denial of pretrial release to criminal defendants, and the excessive duration of criminal proceedings. Both of these ingredients in themselves violate international human rights norm but combined together they constitute a grievous affront to justice… solving the problem of excessive pretrial detention will require courage innovative thinking, an overhaul of the code of criminal procedure, strengthening the judiciary and in particular, increasing its size and efficiency; provisional release laws and effective substitutes for detention. The precise nature of adopting these reforms will require careful examination and analysis for them to fit conformably within a country’s existing legal framework”

The Human Rights Watch Report quoted above offers very insightful analysis of the problem of pretrial detention (or holding charge) and possible solutions. Thus, this research work gives an insight into the implications of holding charge.

Also, the work gives an insight into the reasons why this practice is common among the police .One of the reasons, being delay in carrying out of proper investigation by the Police. Admittedly the police force is handicapped by numerous logistic constrains such as inadequacy of trained, dedicated and well motivated officers. The inadequacy of office accommodation, stationery, transport and communication facilities further limits their efficiency. Transfer of officers handling a case and the lack of transportation facilities to bring prisoners to court constitute additional constraints.35

Finally, this research goes further, to provide possible solutions to curb the menace of holding charge practice on our legal system, and to provide better approach towards ensuring that every person’s rights are protected.


1.7 Scope of the Study

This research work considered mostly how the awaiting trials arrested and detained under the guise of holding charge are generally treated. The legality of holding charge as it affects the provisions of the 1999 constitution (as amended) especially the human right provisions, the effects of holding charge in Nigerian prisons. The research work also took a look on the statutory powers of the police, and factors militating against the police in carrying out their constitutional functions. And finally, how all these have contributed in crippling our Criminal Justice Administration.


1.8 Limitation of the Study

Generally, in carrying out an effective research work, many hurdles must be encountered. Thus, in this research, the following problems were experienced:

  1. The time frame was completely inadequate, and therefore, one has to denial himself many things in order to meet up with the allotted time.
  2. Getting primary and secondary materials was not easy in the course of this research.
  3. Money has always been the problem of most students, let alone a research student. Therefore, the money needed to facilitate this research work was the greatest setback in the course of the research work.

Chapter Five


Conclusion

5.1 Observations

The following observations have been made in this research work which dealt with the challenges of holding charge practice by the police in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria.

Firstly, the police no doubt are empowered by statutes apart from their general duties of preservation of Law and order, protection of life and property, enforcement of law and order, detecting and prevention of crimes, also to prosecute criminal cases in court. Infact, the prosecution powers of the police in all courts in Nigeria have gained judicial validation in the case of Olusemo V. Commissioner of Police1. And majority of these prosecutions are carried out or at least started by the police at the Magistrate Court. But the police more often than not drag suspects to magistrate court on indictable offences to secure remand order before proceeding on investigation. This is notwithstanding that the magistrate lacks jurisdiction on those offences. Through the order of the magistrate such an accused or suspect is remanded in prison till God knows when.

However, the constitution of Nigeria grants the suspect or accused person certain rights. For instance, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He or she is entitled to be represented by a counsel of his or her choice. He or she has a right to bail except in few circumstances where bail is not allowed, because of the gravity of the offence or for other reasonable cause. The accused has a right to speedy trial because of the cardinal principle of law that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.

Thus, it is my humble opinion that this practice by the police and any law sanctioning it is illegal and unconstitutional. As it offend the provisions of the constitution.2

Secondly, by using the instrument of holding charge, the police usually keep the suspect in detention, whilst evidence of guilt are sought. This practice is the main cause of congestion in Nigerian prisons. Many people that are not supposed to be in prison are there because of a failure of investigation. As a corollary, this has increased the government spending in equipping and maintaining little amenities in the prisons.

Finally, the research work discussed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. E.A Lufadeju and Anor.V. Evangelist Bayo Johnson3, wherein the court held that the provision of Section 236(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law. Cap. 33, vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 1994 – 4 did not conflict with the provisions of the constitution. And thereby held valid a remand order made by Magistrate Court pursuant to that section, even though the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the substantive matter.

During the examination of this case, I observed that the apex Court based its judgment on no point of law. The court was in want of where to lay its hand and finally introduced what it called remand proceedings which the Court per Niki Tobi said that “Although remand proceedings is not set out in the Criminal Procedure Law, it is known that the charge is not read to the accused and therefore no plea taken…” What the court was saying is that apart from the arraignment of the suspect or an accused, which is the genesis of criminal trial, a suspect could also be brought to the court for the purpose of conducting remand proceedings, and in the proceedings, the magistrate Court will be faced with two options, one to remand an accused or to grant bail to him.

In my humble opinion, this position is legally wrong because in a capital offence where the magistrate lacked the requisite jurisdiction, the law is that it cannot make any order whatsoever. Again the remand proceeding is not provided for either in the constitution or in any criminal procedure enactment to the best of my knowledge except in Lagos State.

A forensic insight into the case shows that the apex court was only trying to protect the bench. The court, was angry over the fact that Mrs. Lufadeju, the appellant, and the magistrate who made the order of remand in performance of her judicial functions was sued personally for damages over what she did in her official capacity. The respondent was asking for damages of N5,000.000.00 (five million naira) from the appellant for illegal detention. Thus, the sentiment to protect the bench was considered.

Obviously, if the action were maintained against the Attorney General of Lagos state or even in the name of the Lagos state government, the apex court would not have held that such order made by the Magistrate Court as valid. This is because in cases decided by these justices when they were at the Court of Appeal, they have held that such an order made by the magistrate court when it had no jurisdiction is a nullity, more especially when the order was made and will result to an unwarranted denial of an accused right to liberty. Thus, in Anakwe v. C.O.P5 Niki Tobi JSC while in the Court of Appeal held:

“The function of the prosecution is not to rush a charge to a magistrate court, a court which has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter such as to try murder cases, any play for time while investigation is in progress. I have said it before, and I will say it again that the uniquely police phraseology of a holding charge is not known to our criminal law and jurisprudence. It is either a charge or not. There is nothing like a holding charge”.

This statement was made in response to the order of remand of the magistrate court to detain the appellant pending the completion of investigation by the police. This is the same thing with what happened in Lufadeju’s case, an indefinite order of remand for police to investigate. With due respect, that too amount to a holding charge, which the learned justice said is not known to our criminal law and jurisprudence.


5.2 Recommendations:

The holding charge practice represents the single most critical challenge for criminal justice reforms in Nigeria. It is therefore imperative for any government desirous of lasting change to tackle the problem. Accordingly, I hereby recommend the following reform initiatives to eliminate the menace of holding charge from Nigeria’s criminal justice system.

  1. State Legislatures: States’ legislative houses in Nigeria should endeavour to initiate the process of reform of their respective state pretrial detention laws. Thus, the Borno State experience is worthy of emulation, where the former Chief Judge, Hon. Justice K.M Kolo, worked with the committee on Administration of Justice to discard the holding charge from the state’s criminal justice system. Accordingly, magistrate courts in Borno State are no longer used as remanding centre for persons accused of capital offences. All capital offences are now at the first instance filled before a high court judge…6 Also, recently the Chief Justice of Ebonyi State Justice alloy Nwakwo declared on 8th of November, 2013 the abolition of holding charge practice in Ebonyi State Legal system. This was made during the marking of the 2013/2014 legal year in Ebonyi State. Henceforth in Ebonyi State, no Awaiting Trial Person shall stay more than 120 days in detention. I do recommend that other state government should emulate this good gesture, to enhance fair criminal justice administration.
  2. Government (Federal and State): The Government is expected to play a leading and perhaps dominant role in curbing holding charge syndrome. It is my submission that the prosperity of any nation is not measured in monetary terms alone. At the global level, the observance and protection of international human rights norms are fast becoming the parameter for accepting a nation as a member of comity of nations. Therefore, since the members of the police force are more involved in crime investigation and detection, the state should consider seriously, the imperativeness of reactivating and equipping the force. The police authorities have been blamed for a large number of awaiting trial men in the nation’s prisons in that they often fail to complete investigations on time, In the absence of the requisite tools of trade for the police and improved condition of service, the ‘holding charge” may tarry in Nigeria for long. To perform effectively and efficiently therefore, the government should, as a matter of urgency attend to the diverse problems confronting the police. Also, the Federal Government should pay greater attention to the prisons and prisoners. Prisons must be made to rehabilitate and reform inmates. Basic recreational and vocational facilities should be provided in all prison. Improvement in the quality and quantity of food provided for prisoners is necessary just as improvement in prison infrastructure and facilities.  Finally, the Federal government should revitalize, re-organise and re-invigorate the Legal Aid Scheme to provide free legal representation to indigent citizens with a view to reducing incidences of long-term incarceration on account of absence of legal representation.
  3. The Bar and Bench: The Bar and Bench, as partners in progress in the administration of justice, must re-dedicate themselves to promoting justice and fairness. Accordingly, magistrates must refrain form either entertaining maters over which they lack jurisdiction or indeed making consequential orders thereon. The Bar, for its part, must take more proactive steps in the direction of pro-bono cases, and public interest litigation. Interestingly, the 2009 Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules have relaxed the issue of locus standi. Also, Chief Judges should intensify jail delivery exercises in all the states. This will ensure that the prisons are rid off of inmates without plausible grounds of incarceration and guarantee some sanity in the prison system. Thus, the jail delivery exercise embarked upon by Ebonyi State Chief Judge, Justice Alloy Nwankwo on 24th-25th of July, 2013, which led to the release of fifty-five (55) inmates is commendable.7
  4. Ministries of Justice (Federal and State): The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should be made independent of the civil service bureaucracy to enhance efficiency. I suggest the reinforcement of the professional staff of the office of the DPP. This, it is hoped will engender timely rendering of legal advice on case files referred to them by the police for advice. It is worth emphasizing however, that the government must be prepared to offer better incentives to encourage lawyers to work in the ministries of justice.
  5. The Police: The Police force should intensify efforts at human rights education for officers and men. Police officers must also stick to their traditional functions with a bias in favour of timely investigation and prosecution where desirable. Prosecution of cases within the police force should be made the exclusive preserve of trained legal practitioners. This should provide some leverage for accused persons in the sense that reasonable standards of respect for fundamental rights and freedoms will be expected. Mr. Fola Anthur-Worrey, the former Attorney General of Lagos State had suggested that the legal department of the Police Force should be better equipped with seasoned lawyers who can then render advice on some case files8. For it is not unusual for the police, in holding or remand charges, to inform the magistrate court of non-receipt of legal advice and thus, request for an adjournment. In this situation it is the suspect whose incarceration is prolonged that ultimately suffers. As a corollary to the above, I humbly recommend that the Magistrate court should be clothed with jurisdiction to entertain capital offences so that they can have power both to remand and to grant bail when necessary. We all know that what usually happens is that immediately the accused is brought to the court the jurisdiction of such court becomes an issue. We all see that all efforts to deter the police form taking an accused person or suspect to the magistrate court when it lacked jurisdiction have not worked. So, if the jurisdiction of the magistrate court is increased, it cannot only issue order or remand, but also grant bail. This is because, now the magistrate cannot grant bail nor issue order of remand because it has jurisdiction at all, and once the police bring the suspect the only option left for the court are the once it has no jurisdiction, but it must do one to avoid this dilemma,, it is necessary that the jurisdiction of the court be increased. It must be emphasis that to observe the constitutionally guaranteed right to personal liberty and other human rights, the magistrate must not hesitate in releasing accused persons when they have been held beyond the constitutionally stipulated time frame.
  6. The police should be encouraged to speed up investigation of case and consequently more personnel should be employed in these directions for the smooth administration of justice. There is the need for well trained investigating personnel.
  7. Periodic legal training of personnel involved in prosecution of cases in their employment should be undertaken regularly.
  8. There should be periodic review of cases handled by magistrate and those found wanting in abusing their powers can be sanctioned. Sanctions can involve reprimand, suspension, removal and dismissal depending on the gravity of the offences. This periodic exercise should also apply to men of the police force who often always has the duty of investigating and starting the locomotive wheel of the criminal justice system. The police institution is therefore, a sieving institution. It sieves, using the barometer of “probable cause or Reasonable suspicion” to decide whether the suspect should enter the second criminal justice institution or not. The police institution more often than not is criticized for its lackluster role in sieving suspects. Evidence gathering is untidy and almost always the police are not willing to let a suspect go, even when the scale of probable or reasonable cause tilts in favor of the suspect. It should be noted that the prison personnel’s are not exempted form this scrutiny. It is well known that well over 65-70% of prison population in Nigeria falls within the class of awaiting trial persons (ATPs). Any person that is conversant with Nigerian prisons know that this class of people suffer more than convicts. They are subjected to unimaginable indignities, even when they have not been convicted of any offence.
  9. There is need for workshops, seminars, conferences to be held for the three cardinal institutions in the administration of criminal justice system in Nigeria, viz: the Police, Court, and Prison to enable them avail themselves and update their knowledge of current trends in the administration of criminal justice especially when it involves the fundamental human rights of the suspect or accused person.
  10. Civil Society organizations: civil society organizations have very crucial roles to play in the fight against the menace of holding charges. The key role is that of education and enlightenment. Majority of our people do not have access to basic human rights education and are therefore unable to appreciate the intricate connection between respect for rights and good governance. It is therefore for civil society groups to take the initiative to provide quality human rights education to citizens. Another possibility exists in the area of litigation to test the effectiveness of legislative and executive actions aimed at eliminating the scourge of holding charge. Civil society groups could assist with getting the cases to courts to facilitate the process.

It is my expectation that the recommendations in this work will be adhered to, so that the concept of ‘remand proceeding and holding charge’ shall be discouraged. This is because history beckons on the present generation of leaders at all levels in the country to decongest the prisons, offer a ray of hope to an otherwise hopeless generations of prisoners, improve the machinery of criminal justice and bequeath an enduring legacy of humane prison and criminal justice system to the next generation.


5.3 Conclusion

In this research project, I have attempted to examine the challenge of holding charge practice to the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. The flimsy reasons adopted to justify the practice, its illegality, and how the practice has greatly affected the constitutional rights of suspects charged with criminal offences.

The research went on to consider the constitutional rights of suspect or accused persons. And also some of the factors that militate against the Nigerian police force in discharging their statutory duties, especially as regard the area of prompt investigation and prosecution of cases.

The syndrome of holding charge which contributes greatly in the falling standard in the Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria is an illegal charge, unknown to the constitution. Therefore the sentimental judgment of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Lufadeju’s case should be reconsidered. Although the law lacks the precision and exactness of science, yet its scientific development is one exercise from precedent to precedent. It is my humble submission that the approval of remand proceeding or holding charge by the apex court is unconstitutional.

It is my hope that the suggestions I proffered in this research work will in no small measure assist and improve the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria and the menace of the holding charge syndrome as presently experienced will be a tale of the past.


Get Complete Project Material

5,000 5000

The Complete Material Will Be Sent to You in Just 2 Steps

Quick & Simple…


Step One Purchase

Make Payment (Through Transfer) of ₦5,000 to the Account Below

Zenith BankAcc No: 1225513212
Samphina Academy
Current Account

Or CLICK HERE To Pay With Debit Card


FOR STUDENTS OUTSIDE NIGERIA
CLICK HERE To Purchase Material ($15)

Step Two Purchase

Send the Following Details on WhatsApp ( 08143831497) After Payment

  1. Payment Details

  2. TOPIC: Holding Charge Syndrome; A Challenge In The Administration Of Criminal Justice In Nigeria

The Complete Material Will Be Sent To You On WhatsApp After Receiving Your Details
T & C Apply


  Contact Our Help Desk


Need a Different Topic? Perform a Quick Search



List of Related Works

Click on Any Topic to Preview the Content

samphina.academy

Samphina Academy

Samphina Academy is an Online Educational Resource Center that is aimed at providing students with quality information and materials to aid them in succeeding in their academic pursuit.