Why Criminal Justice Reform Is Slow Despite ACJ Statute – Access To Justice

Despite that, the Administration of Criminal Justice Law and Act
has been in force in Lagos and under Federal jurisdiction since
2011 and 2015 respectively, Access to Justice laments that the
level of compliance with its provisions has been poor. STEPHEN
UBIMAGO, who was at a briefing of journalists called by the human
rights advocacy body last Friday, reports…

The Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL),
2011, was enacted to resolve a number of ills in the criminal
justice system in Lagos State.

Remarkably, it also formed the model after which the federal
legislation of about the same nomenclature, Administration of
Criminal Justice Act, 2015, was patterned.

The ACJL was promulgated to resolve a number of mischiefs that
include: the unwarranted hauling of crime suspects into court even
before the commencement of investigations into their alleged
offences; the excessive time taken to conclude the said criminal
investigations; and the consequential remand of suspects pending
conclusion of such investigations and even trials.

Other problems the law seeks to resolve include: the weak record
systems from which cases being tried occasionally slip out into
oblivion; the poor judicial oversight in respect of remand
detention, leading ultimately to prolonged pre-trial imprisonment
of crime suspects; and the practice of extracting confessional
statements from such suspects by means of torture or other
oppressive methods of interrogation.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of the law since 2011, and
despite its revolutionary intendment to rein in the foregoing ills,
many crime suspects are still being dragged to court even before
investigations are conducted into their cases. Nor have the rest of
the other ills been resolved since the law came into force.

These were the submissions made last Friday by Access to Justice
in a session with judicial journalists in Lagos.

AJ disclosed that it was using the occasion to intimate the
public about its findings following the conclusion of a field
research it conducted on the extent to which the Law is being
complied with by stakeholders in the criminal justice sector in the
country.

AJ stated that with support from the UK Department of
International Development (DFID), it conducted the research, which
lasted for three months, in order “to ascertain the level of
awareness, compliance, implementation and enforcement of the ACJ
statute by law enforcement officials, namely the police and the
magistrates.”

It stated that the overriding objective of the research “was to
bridge the gaps militating against the understanding and effective
implementation of the reforms through identification of impediments
to the implementation of the law and proffering recommendations
that can plug these gaps.”

According to the human rights advocacy body, this will help to
enhance better respect for the rights of citizens by the police in
the law enforcement process, as well as ensuring speedier
dispensation of criminal justice.

It observed that the ACJ Law was passed, the object being to
repeal and replace the old Criminal Procedure Law and Act given the
snag they posed to the smooth delivery of criminal justice.

“After six years from the time the reform changes were first
enacted into law in 2007, and two years after the more recent
amendments to the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of 2011,
the creative push for reform in Lagos State and the lofty goals and
outcomes envisaged by the legislation have not been achieved till
this time,” AJ lamented.

It maintained in this connection that “our research validates
the experience of many: not much has changed within police
institutions and even in the courts since the introduction of the
ACJ Law.”

It added that “notable among the causes for this set back is the
pervasive ignorance of relevant provisions of this new law by
institutions directly obligated by the laws – the police (or law
enforcement agencies.)”

From AJ’s findings, only 29 percent of police officers in the
country are familiar with the ACJ Law or have received any formal
training respecting its specific provisions.

However, the ACJ statute was not only promulgated to resolve the
above noted ills in the administration of criminal justice in the
country. It was also enacted to introduce salutary reforms in the
entire criminal justice machinery to make for a more efficient,
functional, forward-looking and futuristic system that is compliant
with global best practices.

“The provision of substantial safeguards against the use of
torture by the police in the interrogation process by stipulating
that confessional statements by crime suspects may be admissible in
evidence if they were video-recorded or taken in the presence of
counsel (lawyer) to the accused person,” constitutes one of the
reforms initiated by of the law, AJ maintained with approval.

Others are “the creation of an oversight system (run and
regulated by magistrates) for remand detention to ensure that
persons on remand are not, by some default, on prolonged and
seemingly interminable incarceration.”

The law also codified the right of crime suspects to remain
silent during police interrogation until after consultation with
counsel – a window commonly referred to as the ‘Miranda’
rights.

It also liberalised sentencing or punishment for offences to
include non-custodial sentencing like community services.

Of course, the reforms were not instituted for their own sake.
They were designed to trigger a chain reaction, which according to
AJ, should result in the easing of “prison congestion; end the
abuse of the remand system; improve the delivery of criminal
justice services by the courts; enhance capacity of law enforcement
officials to act responsibly, accountably and professionally, as
well as ensure better safeguards for the rights of persons who are
processed through the criminal justice system.”

Lamentably, however, despite the constructive objects of the
law, Access to Justice said, “Little change has occurred with
regards to the intended reforms.”

It maintained that magistrates unanimously report that the
police still do not usually abreast them of cases of persons who
are arrested and kept in their custody, or of persons who are
arrested without warrant and are detained without any charges
brought to the court.

“92 percent of police officers interviewed indicated that they
do not notify district magistrates of cases of persons arrested,”
AJ indicated.

It added that “79 percent of the police officers interviewed
reported that they are not aware of this requirement of the law;
while 40 percent of them lamented that there are no existing
templates or forms provided in the law which can serve as a guide
for such notifications to guide them in fulfilling this
requirement.”

Access to Justice also stated that although the ACJ Law provides
that upon arrest there should be notification of the cause of
arrest, nevertheless, “65 percent of police officers reported that
they usually inform suspects of the cause of arrest only at the
point of detention after suspect arrives at the police
station.”

It further lamented that “96 percent of sampled inmates and 92
percent of sampled lawyers reported that police officers do not
inform arrested persons of their rights to apply for bail or free
legal representation as required by the law nor do police officers
provided any facilities for arrested persons to obtain such
services.”

The group’s findings on bail procedure are also not encouraging
despite the reform being pushed in this regard by the ACJ Law.

According to AJ, “The findings indicate that there have been no
real improvements in the practice of bail in Lagos State since the
commencement of the ACJ Law.”

It stressed that “75 percent of the lawyers and 89 percent of
prison inmates interviewed stated that the police do not release
detained suspects on bail where it is impractical to bring such
suspects to court within 24 hours,” adding that “9 percent of
police officers interviewed still maintain the practice of not
accepting women as sureties when granting police bail.”

One of the core objectives of the ACJ legislation is the
institution of reforms that will see to speed of trial of criminal
cases.

The group however noted ruefully that up till presently too much
time is unjustifiably wasted between the filing of information or
charges against suspects and the eventual trial of such suspects,
who are typically left to languish under grueling detention or
prison conditions.

It disclosed that “many of the magistrates in Lagos State do not
comply with the oversight safeguards enshrined in the ACJ Law
concerning 60 days adjournments with respect to persons detained
under remand orders.”

The point of note in AJ’s remarkable finds is that the landscape
of criminal justice in the country has yet to be transformed not so
much because of any intrinsic fault in the ACJ Law, as it is
because the enforcers of the law, from police officers to
magistrates, are either ignorant of or are willfully ignoring its
provisions.

Related