Human Rights Abuses In The Nigerian Prison System
[A CASE STUDY OF NIGER STATE PRISON]

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The Prison system is one of the key components of Criminal Justice Administration as it the correctional institution where prisoners and convicts are kept after undergoing the processes of police investigation and trial by a court of law. The prison is responsible for the custody of the convicts and other inmates. The prison system entails putting in place measures to prevent escapes, such as erecting high walls or chain-link fence, placing armed guards, constant checks of cells, providing system of passes for movements with the prison, constant surveillance, and other measures to prevent escapes, riots, and so on1.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) (as amended) vests in the Federal Government the control and administration of prisons2. This power is generally exercisable by statutory instrument of the National Assembly. However, the Prisons Act and subsidiary legislations vests in the President of Nigeria power over the control, administration, security and welfare of prisoners.

Section 15 (a) of the Prisons Act provides that the President may wave regulations with respect to the organization and administration of prison. However, the Nigerian Prisons Legislation and Practice are generally perceived to be „anti – prisoner‟. They tend to completely take away all rights and self respect of prisoners. This is unlike the general prison practice and legislation in the advanced Nations. For instance in the United Kingdom, Rule 10 of the Prison Rules 1 Dambazau, A.B (2007). Criminology and Criminal Jusitice. Spectrum Books Ltd, Ibadan, p.197.2 Item No.48 of The Exclusive Legislative List of the Second Schedule to the Constitution; A – G., Abia State V. A.G – Federation, (2002) 6 NWLR p.763, p.264, at pp.385 – 386.1

(1999) S1 1999/78 provides that every prisoner must be provided as soon as possible after his inception into prison and in any case within 24 hours, with information in writing about those provisions of the Prison Rules and other matters which are necessary for him/her to know, including his earnings, privileges and the proper method of making requests and complaints. This is not so under the Nigerian Prison Legislation.

There is an ill-conceived notion that prison inmates have no rights within the general population. Their rights may be limited; but they have a degree of human and civil rights that is guarding how are being treated within the prison environment.

This study being on suspects on remand is intended to see whether or not their rights as enshrined in these instruments and local laws are being respected. But if otherwise, what are the nature and extent of the violations, at what stages do they suffer these violations and what factors responsible for such violations. These are the specific issues that will form the focus of the study.

1:2 Statement Of The Problem

The global community has recognized and enshrined human rights provisions in many international conventions. The most important among them is the International Bill of Human Rights, proclaimed and adopted at various times by the General Assembly of the United Nations. This comprises of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (March 1976), and The International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (January 1976).The first of these is primarily a declaratory statement of these basic inalienable rights.  It is intended to serve as the ‘common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations and is of great moral authority.’(Ajomo and Okagbue, 1991:149).

The United Nations Human Rights instruments under Principle 1 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons Under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment for instance provides that, “All persons under any form of detention shall be treated in a humanitarian manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” Similarly, Principle 38 states that, “…a person detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.” Furthermore, the African Union Charter on Human and Peoples right, for instance, spells the third category of rights, that is, the rights of peoples (which are new) based on the African economic and developmental reality because of the relevance of economic power in realizing human potential, (Nzongola-Ntalaja, 1994:9). 

Human rights are usually guaranteed and enshrined in the constitutions or such other relevant legal documents of different nations. The provisions of Nigeria’s Constitution of 1960, 1963, 1979, 1989 and 1999, have all laid emphasis on the protection of the Universal Declaration and promote the protection of the rights of detainees. 

Nigeria’s 1999 constitution section 35 sub-sections 3 provides that any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed in writing within 24 hours (and in a language that he understands) of the facts and grounds for his arrest and detention. In addition, the law as stated in the 1999 Constitution provides that a person arrested shall not be handcuffed or otherwise be bound or subjected to unnecessary restraint except by order of court.  But this law shall not apply where there is reasonable apprehension of violence or an attempt to escape or where the restraint is considered necessary for the safety of the person arrested. Where force is necessary or allowed in effecting an arrest, only such force as is required to overcome the resistance of the person sought to be arrested is permissible and an officer using excessive force may be made answerable for such.

To forestall the problems of the judiciary, Justice Kayode Eso Panel was put in place to examine, inter alia “…the negative public perception of the Nigerian judiciary as exemplified by complaints/allegations of polarization of the judicial system along ethnic, tribal and/or political leanings; corruption and high profile lifestyle of some judges; ineptitude, laziness and incompetence of judges; long period of time in disposition of cases; ridiculously high cost of obtaining justice; mode of appointment of judges, which does not facilitate the appointment of the right caliber of judges into the service; and the terms and conditions of service of the judges.