Despite the existence of the National Action Plan (NAP) on human rights, a plethora of hapless citizens remain trapped in prolonged pre-trial detention, due to corruption, judicial inefficiencies, police abuses, and limited legal aid, making the impact of the action plan largely unnoticeable, AMEH OCHOJILA reports.
The four-year National Action Plan (NAP) on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which took effect is already one year old and terminates in 2028. Like the previous action plans, it seems its intended impact will also pass unnoticed.
According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the current NAP was developed following the expiration of the initial NAP 2009-2013, to enforce the commitment of the present administration towards the protection of human rights.
Posers are, however, a groundswell regarding how rights of citizens were protected during the existence of the previous NAP.
That said, the increasing records of rights abuses regardless of the existence of NAP dim the optimism about the success of the current campaign and has reignited concerns about the country’s persistent pre-trial detention crisis.
In a country where human rights are effectively protected, the greater number of citizens who are languishing in detention facilities won’t be there without trial and conviction.
While the NAP aspires to strengthen fundamental rights and freedoms, thousands of detainees continue to rot in correctional facilities without trial, raising questions about the plan’s effectiveness.
Developed in line with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, Austria, in 1993, NAP was envisioned as an actionable framework to safeguard human rights at national, regional, and international levels.
At its core, the plan acknowledges that every individual has the right to live a life of dignity, equality, and freedom from discrimination. However, given the staggering number of detainees who remain in prolonged pre-trial detention, it is difficult to measure whether the plan has delivered any meaningful change or if it remains a policy document with little real-world impact, especially as the issue of pre-trial detention in Nigeria is systemic.
According to data from the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS), about 66 per cent of inmates in correctional centres across the country are awaiting trial—some for offences as minor as loitering or petty theft.
As of the last count, over 53,225 detainees have yet to have their cases heard in court, while many have been held behind bars for years without a single court appearance due to judicial inefficiencies, lack of legal representation, and corruption.
The consequences of these delays are severe.
Beyond violating the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, the backlog of cases has led to prison congestion, compounding the already deplorable living conditions in correctional facilities.
Regardless of the fact that NAP outlines strategies to protect human rights, Nigeria’s human rights landscape remains dire.
A review of the NHRC’s Human Rights Violation Dashboard, which documents cases nationwide highlights an alarming surge in abuses.
In January 2025 alone, the Commission received 169,850 complaints across its 38 offices, underscoring the scale of the crisis.
The Executive Secretary of NHRC, Dr Tony Ojukwu (SAN), at the presentation of the January 2025 Human Rights Situation Dashboard in Abuja, described the statistics as deeply troubling.
He stated that the data revealed a continuous rise in extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, insurgency-related abuses, and gender-based violence, all of which further compound the struggles of detainees who are awaiting trial.
In that same month, 308 killings and 146 kidnappings were recorded nationwide, while over 900 children were abandoned by their parents. Reports from Zamfara detailed mass killings, including the bombing of civilian vigilantes in Zurmi and Maradun, illustrating the scale of insecurity.
For those caught in the grip of the country’s criminal justice system, access to justice remains an ongoing battle.
To tackle the challenges, the NAP outlines policy measures aimed at expediting criminal cases and preventing indefinite detentions. One of the key provisions is the mandatory visitation of correctional centres by chief judges and magistrates to assess the cases of detainees who are yet to be arraigned.
Additionally, it called for increased efforts to ensure that detainees are present in court when their cases are scheduled, rather than being kept in facilities for extended periods without trial.
Another measure by the NAP involves strengthening investigative procedures to prevent the arraignment of suspects without a thorough and fair inquiry into their cases.
The judiciary, in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, is expected to increase the frequency of judges’ visits to correctional centres. This is supposed to lead to a rise in non-custodial sentencing as an alternative to imprisonment.
However, this intervention has yet to yield the significant impact needed to curb the overwhelming backlog of pretrial detainees.
Despite these efforts, systemic challenges persist. One of the most troubling issues remains the abuse of police powers, particularly the continued practice of arresting individuals in place of others, a violation explicitly prohibited by Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
Another challenge is the widespread reliance on coerced confessions, a practice condemned by Section 29 of the Evidence Act 2011, which mandates that any statement made by a suspect or defendant must be voluntary.
Although the NAP acknowledges these abuses and highlights the Legal Aid Council Act of 2011 and the National Human Rights Act of 2010 as frameworks to ensure access to justice, their implementation has been inconsistent due to certain challenges. Many indigent detainees remain without legal representation, prolonging their pre-trial detentions.
The executive secretary, Ojukwu (SAN) is worried over the lack of indigent access to justice. “It’s worrisome that the number of people who can’t access justice is quite enormous. It’s very disturbing even though the Constitution makes provisions to assist people who cannot ordinarily afford legal representation.
“The system should be able to assist them to access justice. That is why organisations like the Legal Aid Council (LAC), the NHRC, and the federal and state ministries of justice have established offices such as citizens’ rights and public defenders, among others.
All these notwithstanding, the inability to give access to justice to everybody,” he pointed out remains very distressing.
The slow pace of justice remains one of the most significant obstacles to reform. While laws such as the Nigeria Police Act, of 2020, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, of 2015, and the Evidence Act, 2011 provide legal backing for more efficient trial processes, enforcement remains a challenge. Delays in judicial proceedings, limited manpower, and an overwhelming backlog of cases All continue to hinder progress.
Until decisive actions are taken to strengthen law enforcement accountability and judicial efficiency, pre-trial detainees will continue to be the casualties of an overburdened justice system.
Although the NAP (2024-2028) presents a well-intended roadmap, its impact on detainees’ rights remains questionable.
One year into its implementation, its promises of judicial efficiency and access to justice appear to have made little difference for those trapped in prolonged pre-trial detention.
According to Monday Ikpe, a lawyer, unless there is genuine political will to enforce judicial oversight, curb law enforcement abuses, and expand access to legal aid services, the crisis will persist. Thousands of detainees will continue to suffer in Nigeria’s correctional facilities, waiting indefinitely for justice that may never come.
Similarly, Bayo Akindele, also a lawyer, believes that the NHRC largely fulfills its mandate in addressing human rights violations, but faces critical capacity limitations, particularly in terms of personnel.
According to him, not all cases of detainees amount to human rights violations, as the judiciary is responsible for remanding individuals in correctional facilities, often due to their inability to meet bail conditions.
The judiciary, particularly in Lagos State, he said, struggles with heavy caseloads, leading to long adjournments of up to three to four months in criminal cases.
He therefore declared that greater attention should be given to the judiciary’s role in ensuring citizens’ rights.
Akindele advised the NHRC to enhance its capacity by increasing personnel and leveraging technology to monitor correctional facilities remotely, ensuring that each office is well-equipped with information and resources to fulfill its duties effectively.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Terkura Pepe, thinks differently of the performance of the NHRC. In recent times, the NHRC, he noted, has focused more on advocacy than practical involvement in human rights litigation.
The SAN, therefore, suggested that the Commission initiates human rights enforcement cases in the courts, especially where unlawful or unjust pre-trial detention is involved.
The Commission, he said, can also sponsor a prison decongestion scheme in the spirit of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which seeks to outlaw lengthy pre-trial detention.
In addition, he suggested that lawyers could also be involved in pro bono programs aimed at decongesting prisons and detention facilities across the country.
The Executive Director, Sterling Law Centre, Deji Ajare, noted that the NHRC has played a vital role in protecting and promoting human rights in Nigeria, especially in the context of pre-trial detainees in prisons and other detention facilities.
According to him, NHRC has been active in monitoring human rights conditions in detention centres, including conducting periodic visits to these facilities, which is a positive step towards monitoring human rights conditions.
He lamented that the practice of giving advance notice about such visits to heads of detention centres, undermines the ability of the NHRC to meet the reality of conditions on ground.
The prior notice, he stressed, removes the element of surprise that would allow the NHRC to observe the actual conditions of detention.
“Without this surprise element, there is a risk that facility managers might have taken actions to temporarily rectify conditions, potentially masking the true state of affairs. This undermines the NHRC’s ability to detect and address the systemic violations of human rights,” he declared.
The lawyer explained that the United Nations Sub-committee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) having had first-hand experience of this issue, raised concerns about this practice of notifying detention centres before visits during its recent mission to Nigeria.
He explained that the SPT’s report confirmed that the practice prevents an accurate assessment of the conditions detainees are subjected to.
“Perhaps, there is a need to strengthen the NHRC, maybe by an amendment of its establishment Act, to carry out or conduct unannounced visits to detention centres and punish such agencies that refuse it access. This approach would be in line with best practices recommended by international human rights bodies and would enhance the effectiveness of the NHRC’s monitoring efforts,” Ajare declared.
