Connect with us

News

Gombe’s 180-day justice deadline sparks debate over endless pre-trial detentions

Published

on

Newly posted Controller of Correctional Service in Gombe State, Agada Felix-Audu, recently declared that no suspect should spend more than 180 days awaiting trial before conviction or acquittal, thereby reigniting scrutiny of Nigeria’s justice system, where over 53,000 of 81,000 inmates are still awaiting trial—some for years over petty offences, writes CHIMA AZUBUIKE

When Agada Felix-Audu, the newly posted Controller of the Correctional Service in Gombe State, declared that no suspect should spend more than 180 days awaiting trial before being either convicted or acquitted, his words reverberated beyond the conference hall. They touched the very heart of Nigeria’s criminal justice system.

For decades, Nigeria’s custodial centres have been filled not only with hardened convicts but with men and women who have not yet been found guilty of crime. Some individuals are languishing behind bars over allegations of theft of a mobile phone or issues over repayment of a N20,000 loan. Sometimes, this is because their cases were not heard promptly or because they could not “do the needful”, often demanded to expedite their files.

Felix-Audu’s pronouncement at his familiarisation visit to the Secretary to the Government of Gombe State, Prof Ibrahim Abubakar-Njodi, was both bold and simple: “Within 180 days, a suspect awaiting trial must either be convicted or acquitted, no matter the crime committed.” But is this feasible in a justice system typically plagued by delays, underfunding, corruption, and human rights violations?

Across Nigeria, the statistics paint a grim picture. According to the Nigerian Correctional Service 2024 annual report, out of approximately 77,000 inmates nationwide, more than 52,000 are awaiting trial, that is, nearly 70 per cent of the total prison population. Some inmates have been in pre-trial detention for more than five years, despite being accused of offences carrying maximum sentences of two years or less. By August 2025, the number rose to 53,460 awaiting trial, with 81,000 inmates nationwide.

In Gombe State, the situation mirrors the national crisis. The state’s five custodial centres—Gombe, Nafada, Bajoga, Cham, and Billiri—are home to thousands of inmates, the vast majority of whom are awaiting trial. Cases drag on for reasons ranging from incomplete police investigations to prosecutors deliberately inflating charges for personal gain. Courtrooms are few and under-resourced, while magistrates juggle overwhelming caseloads.

Against this background, the call for a 180-day limit feels both urgent and aspirational. For those languishing in cells, it could mean the difference between life and death, between hope and despair.

At the Gombe custodial centre,  Aisha, a female inmate who was remanded pending trial, narrated her ordeal with quiet resignation. “For the time I spent there, I didn’t eat rice with stew, whether with groundnut oil or palm oil. The food lacked salt. The rice comes in small quantities—it won’t satisfy even a child.”

Her account is echoed by others across the state. Elijah, a former inmate from Plateau State who served in Gombe custodial centre, recounted how he entrusted N8,000 to prison records upon arrival.

“When he fell sick, part of the money was spent on medicine. Upon release, only N3,000 was returned. Worse still, the police officers who came to take him to court proceedings collected another N2,000,” Elijah said.

See also  FRSC, Army collaborate on intelligence sharing, others

Past inmates report disturbing conditions of incarceration, including bug-ridden mattresses and poor quality of meals. They also claim that mats are hoarded by prison officials, leaving some inmates to sleep on bare floors. “Kunu, a watery millet drink, is often the only breakfast available, unless inmates can afford to buy food. Lunch might be a cup of garri, without sugar or water. Dinner is a small cup of rice shared among three people on a rubber plate.

“If you have money, you will buy water. If you don’t, you eat like that,” Peter, another inmate, explained.

A family member of one of the inmates,  who identified himself as Sambo Danti, said payment at an opposite point that serves as a clearing stand is most disappointing, describing it as a conduit of corruption.

Danti said, “This reality is compounded by extortion at every level. Inmates and their families are forced to pay for services that should be free, from faster case processing to better food portions.

“You are made to pay N200 for the form before going in to see your family member. I wonder what the N200 form is for. I wonder what it will solve. But without it, you can’t gain access. Upon entry, you are made to drop all your phones for fear of incriminating evidence, but they forget that we now have other recording devices like a pen, glasses, but of course, that wasn’t my intention.

“I have seen family members who were asked to go home because they couldn’t afford an entry pass. I doubt if the money they make is remitted as revenue.”

Assistant Chief Admin Officer at the National Human Rights Commission in Gombe, Ndam Nanfa, offered a scathing assessment of corruption within custodial facilities.

Nanfa said, “How will you explain a situation where, in prison, if an inmate has N1,000 in custody, officials only release N500 and keep the rest? Imagine how much more they take when the money is bigger.”

“The rot is not confined to correctional officials,” she added.

Nanfa alleged that prosecutors also exploit families. “If a magistrate fines a suspect N5,000, prosecutors can demand N30,000 from the family, plus another N30,000 for logistics. Failure to pay lands the suspect in prison.”

“Such practices not only prolong incarceration but also reinforce the perception that justice in Nigeria is for sale. For the poor, the inability to pay means endless waiting; for the rich, it is merely another cost of doing business,” Nanfa said.

While this debate rages, what happens to inmates in Gombe, Nafada, Bajoga, Cham, and Billiri custodial centres who continue to languish in squalid conditions, surviving on meals of plain rice without stew, bug-ridden beds, and the constant shadow of extortion?

The Controller’s 180-day proposal is not an entirely new idea. The Nigerian Constitution under Section 35(4) already requires that any person arrested or detained on suspicion of committing an offence must be arraigned in court within a reasonable time, defined as one day in cases where a court is within a forty-kilometre radius, or two days otherwise.

Furthermore, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and its state-level adaptations sought to eliminate unnecessary delays by introducing stricter timelines for trials, case management powers for judges, and provisions for non-custodial sentencing.

See also  Abia inaugurates health centre, 31 buildings donated by indigene

However, implementation remains the Achilles’ heel. Police still complain of a lack of resources, prosecutors are stretched thin, courts are congested, and the political will to enforce discipline in the system is often weak. What Felix-Audu did was to translate these lofty legal aspirations into a concrete, time-bound call: 180 days, no more.

Felix-Audu’s further suggestion of a centralised Database Management System, hosted by the Ministry of Justice, to synchronise police investigations, prosecutorial actions, and correctional records, holds promise.

He adds that by digitising case flows, accountability could improve, and inmates would no longer disappear into the cracks of paper-based bureaucracy.

“We are working to create a more responsive and efficient system. A biometric database of offenders has already been established to improve information sharing with other security agencies and to help decongest custodial centres nationwide,” Felix-Audu noted.

He emphasised that ensuring security should not always mean incarceration, but include psychological interventions such as counselling.

“Security goes beyond confinement. Rehabilitation, especially for those with minor offences, is essential to breaking the cycle of crime,” he added.

Yet, for many observers, the question is not whether the idea is desirable, but whether it is sustainable.

Models exist that Gombe could learn from. In South Africa, the Criminal Procedure Act sets clear bail and remand timelines, with strict oversight by judicial officers.

In Kenya, judicial reforms in the early 2010s introduced case-tracking systems and regular audit reviews of remand cases, leading to significant reductions in pre-trial detention.

In Ghana, the introduction of non-custodial sentencing, such as community service, has eased congestion in prisons and allowed courts to focus on more serious cases. This points to the fact that reform is possible when backed by political will, adequate funding, and institutional accountability.

Speaking recently, the Gombe State Deputy Governor, Manassah Jatau, decried the congestion and housing together of violent and non-violent offenders in custodial centres across the country.

He warned that violent inmates could negatively influence non-violent ones, thereby exposing them to deeper criminal tendencies, aggression, ill health, and even mental disorders.

“The situation where hardened criminals are kept together with minor offenders is a dangerous trend. It only worsens the problem rather than solving it,” Jatau stated.

The deputy governor acknowledged the enormity of challenges facing the security and justice system in the country, stressing the need for justice to be delivered promptly and without bias.

He also urged some solicitors to desist from compounding the justice system by shielding criminals for selfish interests.

Jatau further identified youthful exuberance as a common issue among inmates, stressing the need for counselling and rehabilitation rather than outright incarceration.

“Most of these young people need guidance, not just punishment. We must prioritise reformation over retribution,” he added.

Jatau pledged the state government’s support to the service in this regard and advised the Comptroller to work in synergy with sister security agencies, especially the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, and other stakeholders for an effective fight against crime.

Some analysts argue that the feasibility of a 180-day trial completion is undermined by multiple structural challenges. They mention that police investigations remain underfunded and slow, often reliant on confessions extracted under duress rather than forensic evidence.

See also  ‘Nigerians must go,’ Ghanaians protest alleged prostitution, ritual killings

Other issues raised are that prosecutors are overstretched, handling more cases than they can realistically manage, and deliberately delaying cases to extract bribes. They also note that the judiciary suffers from a shortage of judges and magistrates, leading to clogged dockets and endless adjournments.

A legal practitioner, Abdullahi Bello, also posited that inmates should be consistently deployed to farms to enhance the country’s desire to achieve food security.

Bello said, “Instead of allocating millions into food that is not adequately supplied, they should be made to farm crops that they will not only eat but help to achieve the country’s food sufficiency.”

Observers note that, even where the law provides for speedy trials, weak enforcement and lack of accountability mean that timelines are rarely respected.

Without addressing these systemic flaws, they note that the 180-day deadline risks becoming another unfulfilled aspiration.

For Gombe to make the 180-day proposal sustainable, they canvass for a multipronged approach, including the expansion of judicial capacity through the appointment of more judges and magistrates.

They asked for a reform in police investigations, shifting from confession-based methods to evidence-driven approaches. Also identified is that prosecutors require oversight mechanisms to curb extortion, while correctional officers must be held accountable for the welfare of inmates.

Felix- Audu further demanded the absorption of the Correctional Service into the State Security Council to give the agency a voice in crime prevention and intelligence-sharing, and ensure that it is not merely the endpoint of the justice system but an active participant in security governance.

He adds, “Technology can play a transformative role. A digital case management system linking police, prosecutors, courts, and correctional centres could improve transparency, prevent files from disappearing, and provide real-time tracking of case progress. Equally important is the expansion of legal aid services to ensure that poor defendants are not abandoned in the system without representation.”

“Alternative sentencing should be embraced. Minor offences, such as petty theft, should attract community service or fines, not prolonged detention. This would reduce congestion in custodial centres and allow resources to be focused on serious offenders.”

The call to convict or acquit within 180 days is more than a bureaucratic target. For thousands of inmates in Gombe and across Nigeria, it represents hope, the possibility that their lives will not be wasted in the limbo of pre-trial detention.

Without structural reforms addressing corruption, underfunding, and inefficiency, the argument of stakeholders is that the proposal risks becoming another well-meaning but unimplemented policy. For the woman who never ate stew in detention, for the man who lost his savings to corruption, and for countless others surviving on kunu and bug-ridden mats, justice delayed is justice denied.

The practicability and sustainability of the 180-day proposal will depend not on pronouncements but on action by police, prosecutors, judges, correctional officers, and the state government. Only then can Gombe State transform its custodial centres from warehouses of despair into true centres of rehabilitation and justice.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Step-by-step guide for contactless passport renewal for Nigerians abroad

Published

on

The Nigeria Immigration Service has released an updated step-by-step guide for Nigerians living abroad to renew their passports through its Contactless Passport Application System.

The Service announced the update in a post on its official X handle on Tuesday, encouraging Nigerians in the diaspora to take advantage of the digital platform.

According to the Service, the application process involves the following steps:

1. Visit the official NIS Passport Application portal.
2. Select Continue from the pop-up window.
3. Click Apply for Renewal/Re-issue.
4. Create an account and verify your identity using your National Identification Number and date of birth.
5. Complete the application form and choose your preferred processing embassy or high commission.
6. Upload the required documents.
7. Pay the passport fee for your selected booklet.
8. Obtain your Application ID and Reference Number.
9. Select the Contactless option under the Application Status/Book Appointment section.
10. Review the contactless instructions and click “I Understand and Opt In.”
11. Download the NIS Mobile App.
12. Log in or create a profile on the app.
13. Select Passport Application Services.
14. Click Passport Biometrics Enrolment, enter your Application ID and Reference Number, and check your eligibility.
15. Capture your facial image and fingerprints.
16. Complete the liveness verification.
17. Pay the contactless service fee.
18. Submit your biometrics.

The Service, however, noted that not all applicants would qualify for the contactless process.

“If response is INELIGIBLE, then it means applicant should return to the landing page of the portal to book physical appointment at the Embassy/High Commission,” it stated.

See also  Nigerian Army opens applications for direct short service commission course

For applicants who successfully complete the contactless biometric enrolment, the NIS said additional documents must be forwarded to the selected processing mission.

“Upon successful completion of biometrics via Contactless App, applicant should print-out the Application form, passport booklet payment, biometric payment, current Passport and enclose all in a self-addressed return envelope to the processing embassy selected during the application process,” the Service said.

It added that applicants would be able to monitor the progress of their applications after submission.

“Applicant may track successful application two weeks after submission via https://track.immigration.gov.ng or on the NIS Mobile App,” the Service added.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

PFIPC scandal: Ex-SGF Babachir Lawal suspects ‘big racket’ behind ‘fake’ agency’s budget code

Published

on

A former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has called for a judicial inquiry into the controversy surrounding the alleged fake Presidential Fiscal and Infrastructure Projects Council (PFIPC), arguing that the scandal points to deep institutional failures rather than a simple administrative error.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Lawal said the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency suggested the existence of a wider network that enabled it to function within government processes despite questions over its legal status.

He insisted that an administrative investigation alone would be insufficient. “I don’t think it should even be administrative alone; it should be a judicial inquiry”, the former SGF clearly stated.

Lawal questioned claims surrounding an alleged ₦27.5bn take-off grant reportedly linked to the agency, asking how such funds could have been approved and released if the organisation had no legal basis.

“Nigerians are talking about how N1.3bn was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget.

“Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that N27.5bn Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, N27.5bn had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarrelling about how it got into the budget. How did that money get to them?”, Babachir queried.

See also  FRSC boss tells why officers need arms

The former SGF argued that the controversy only became public because of disagreements over the sharing of funds rather than because government oversight mechanisms functioned effectively.

He continued,… “So you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the N27.5bn. That’s why the thing came up. So it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.”

Lawal also alleged that the scandal reflected broader institutional weaknesses within the current administration, arguing that the Office of the SGF should have detected any irregularities before the matter progressed through official channels.

He maintained that the SGF’s office bears responsibility for identifying and flagging agencies without legal backing before their requests or budgets proceed through government.

He said, “It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

See also  FRSC, Army collaborate on intelligence sharing, others

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Lawal further criticised the National Assembly, accusing lawmakers of failing to thoroughly scrutinise budget proposals.

“It is a legislative oversight. This government—this National Assembly—has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene.”

He also suggested that public attention should focus not only on the agency’s legal status but on the individuals who allegedly enabled its operations.

“Why are you interested in N27.5bn that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form.

“Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now”, he concluded.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

 

See also  Nigerian Army opens applications for direct short service commission course

Continue Reading

News

Fake Agency Scandal: Gbajabiamila threatens Adeyemi with N10bn defamation suit

Published

on

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, ha threatened to initiate legal steps against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, and demand N10 billion in damages over allegations linking him to murder, bribery and other criminal activities.

The move was conveyed in a letter dated July 6, 2026, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, on behalf of Pinheiro LP, the Chief of Staff’s legal representatives.

The dispute stems from a press conference held by Adeyemi on June 25, during which he accused Gbajabiamila of seeking a share of the alleged take-off funds of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), receiving money through intermediaries, abusing his office and participating in efforts to conceal wrongdoing.Death & Tragedy

During the briefing, Adeyemi also referred to the Chief of Staff as “a murderer” and “an assassin”.

The Presidency has consistently maintained that the PFIPC is a fictitious organisation, despite its appearance in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers dismissed all the allegations as entirely false and defamatory, saying they were intended to damage his reputation.

The letter stated: “not only false but gravely defamatory,” adding that the allegations were “designed to portray our client as corrupt, dishonest, criminally culpable, morally bankrupt, administratively incompetent, a murderer and unfit to occupy public office.”

According to the legal team, Adeyemi is already standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, FRN v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Ors, over allegations including forgery of an appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s purported signature and the alleged counterfeiting of Presidential letter-headed papers to present himself as a government official.Nigeria Investment Guide

See also  FG defends Tinubu’s UK visit, highlights strategic Nigeria‑UK ties

The lawyers further rejected Adeyemi’s claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.4 billion take-off grant for the council, amounting to about N12.5 billion, or that he received N400 million through proxies connected to appointments within the organisation.

Other allegations dismissed in the letter included claims that the Chief of Staff intimidated individuals and media organisations, manipulated budget processes, attempted to misuse security agencies and performed official duties while under the influence of intoxicating substances.Trending News Feed

Gbajabiamila also denied ever having any relationship with Adeyemi.

“You have never at any time met, interacted with, communicated with, or had any form of personal or official dealing whatsoever with him,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the decision to “fabricate and publish allegations against a person with whom you have had absolutely no relationship or interaction underscores the reckless, baseless and malicious nature of your publication.”

The legal team also criticised the timing of the allegations, noting that they were made after criminal proceedings had already been instituted against Adeyemi.

“It is even more disturbing to our client that you resorted to defaming him through your press statements after a criminal Charge had been filed against you,” the letter stated.

It added, “Trial by media remains unknown to Nigerian law and cannot be a substitute for due process.”Nigeria Investment Guide

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers demanded that Adeyemi immediately stop making further defamatory statements, remove all related videos, recordings and transcripts from every platform, issue a full retraction and apology in at least five national newspapers and across all social media platforms used to circulate the claims, and provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making further allegations.

See also  ‘Nigerians must go,’ Ghanaians protest alleged prostitution, ritual killings

The letter warned that failure to comply would result in both criminal defamation proceedings under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory and a civil lawsuit seeking N10 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages. The damages, it said, would be donated to a charity chosen by Gbajabiamila. The legal action would also seek a perpetual injunction and a court order compelling the publication of an apology.

The controversy centres on the PFIPC, which was listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under the title Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and received more than N1.3 billion in budgetary allocations, including about N803 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Adeyemi had argued during his June 25 press conference that an agency included in a budget signed by the President could not be regarded as non-existent.

However, the Presidency insists the council is fraudulent and has no legal existence.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone involved in the dispute and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations against both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.

Adeyemi is scheduled to appear before the Federal High Court on July 27, 2026.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending