Human rights are the inalienable rights bestowed on human beings irrespective of class, race, color, tribe or language. These rights are universal and are not accorded to humans by any governmental authority. They are natural and inherent in everyone by virtue of being a human being. These rights have been recognized and enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), with necessary legal limitations. One of such rights is the right to freedom of movement, which may be restricted under specific lawful circumstances such as detention or conviction pursuant to a valid court order. While detention will not amount to an infringement of the right highlighted above, the duration of the detention has to be within the ambit of the law. Where a suspect has exceeded the constitutionally stipulated time frame, the continuous detention of that individual becomes unlawful and a violation of the individual’s fundamental rights.

In a bid to avoid the allegations of unlawful detention, the police and other enforcement agencies now resort to legalizing the continued detention of suspects by applying to the courts for a remand order requesting that the suspect be remanded pending the advice of the Director of Public Prosecution or formal arraignment. The practice is to arraign the suspect before a court that lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case, which is usually the Magistrate Court or Area Court, solely for the purpose of obtaining a remand order. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in Lufadeju v Johnson^[1] defined the word ‘remand’ as the process of sending someone to prison or returning them to prison from a court of law for a further trial after further investigations or trial. Remand proceedings were previously unknown to Nigerian laws; rather, what existed was a holding charge. A holding charge involves charging a suspect before a lower court which lacks the jurisdiction to hear or determine the matter.

A holding charge although similar to a remand procedure, typically lacks a return date, thereby enabling the indefinite detention of suspects. Due to the widespread abuse, Holding Charges have since been replaced by the remand procedure. This work will highlight relevant sections of the Nigerian legal framework which provide for the Remand Procedure with particular reference to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and the Oyo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2016.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 regulates remand procedure at the federal level, while at the state level, the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of the various states of the federation also contains similar provisions on remand procedure. The procedure outlined in the ACJA is intended to ensure judicial oversight, balance the constitutional right to liberty with public interest and allow prosecutors adequate time to prepare for arraignment.

According to Section 293 of ACJA 2015, a law enforcement officer or prosecutor may apply to a court for a remand order by way of a Report and Request for Remand Form, which must be verified on oath. Section 294(1) of ACJA 2015 provides for the conditions which are to be taken into consideration by the court before granting an application for the remand of a suspect. They are:

1. The nature and seriousness of the alleged offence;
2. Reasonable grounds to suspect that the suspect has been involved in the commission of the alleged offence;
3. Reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect may abscond or commit further offence where he is not committed to custody; and
4. Any other circumstance of the case that justifies the request for remand.

The Act further provides that the initial remand period must not exceed 14 days, with the matter returnable during that period. However, the court may extend the remand for another 14 days upon a written application by the prosecution, stating good cause.  Therefore, the act permits courts to further remand the suspect where it becomes absolutely necessary to do so, subject to certain conditions. If no good cause is shown for the continued detention or where the suspect is still in custody after the expiration of the remand period, the court is mandated to order the release of the suspect after which no further application for remand shall be entertained by any court^[2].

The Oyo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2016, on the other hand, also contains similar provisions on remand procedure. The Oyo state has permitted Magistrate Courts to remand suspects where the court lacks jurisdiction to conduct the trial. This is pursuant to section 292 of the abovementioned law. The position of the law is that a suspect can be remanded for a period not exceeding 14 days in the first instance^[3]. This position is not cast in iron as a suspect can be remanded for more than 14 days under certain circumstances which have been stipulated by the law. The conditions are provided for in the remaining subsections of section 295 of the Law.

Subsection 2 of section 295 goes further to provide that upon application in writing to show good cause as to why the remand period should be extended, the court may order the continuous remand of the person(s) for a period not exceeding 14 days. Where the person is still in custody after the additional 14-day period, the person may be granted bail by a court^[4] or the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General of the state are expected to show good cause why the individuals remanded should not be unconditionally released^[5]. Where the Commissioner of Police or the AG of the State can show good cause and make a request to that effect, the court may extend the remand of the person for a final period not exceeding 14 days for the suspect to be arraigned for trial^[6] but where the COP or the AG of the state are unable to show good cause or the person is still in remand custody after the extended period under subsection 5 of the aforementioned section of the law, the individual is liable to be released immediately from custody with or without an application to that effect^[7]. After which the court will not entertain any further remand application^[8].

Applying the foregoing provisions of the Oyo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2016 on remand to the trending case of Naomi Silekuonla, Oriyomi Hamzat and Abdullahi Fasasi who were arrested, charged and remanded in prison custody in Oyo state following the unfortunate event that took place at the venue of the fun fair organized by ex-queen Naomi, it can be observed that the further remand of the suspects for 21 days was unconstitutional. The court erred in law by permitting the suspects to remain in remand custody for a period of 21 days, thereby disregarding the provisions of Oyo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2016 on remand order.

Recommendations

1. Strict Judicial Oversight and Compliance with Statutory Limits: Magistrates and other judicial officers must strictly adhere to the temporal limits stipulated in both the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and applicable State Administration of Criminal Justice Laws. The judiciary must refrain from granting remand orders that exceed the prescribed 14-day duration except in strict compliance with statutory requirements for extension upon a showing of “good cause.”

2. Enhanced Capacity Building for Law Enforcement and Judicial Officers: Continuous legal education and capacity development programmes should be institutionalised for police prosecutors, magistrates, and other judicial stakeholders to ensure awareness of the evolving jurisprudence on remand procedures and the imperative of safeguarding human rights.
3. Accountability Mechanisms for Non-Compliance: The Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committees (ACJMCs) should not only monitor but also publish periodic compliance reports and recommend disciplinary actions against defaulting judicial and prosecutorial officers who authorize or engage in unlawful remand practices.
4. Empowerment of Legal Aid and Public Defender Services: The Legal Aid Council should be adequately funded and empowered to intervene in cases of unlawful remand. Pro bono legal support should be readily available to indigent suspects remanded without trial.
5. Digitisation and Tracking of Remand Orders: State judicial councils should establish a centralised electronic database for tracking the issuance and expiration of remand orders. This would help prevent prolonged and unnoticed detention of suspects beyond the statutory periods.
6. Public Awareness and Civic Engagement: Civil society organisations and the media should actively sensitise the public on the illegality of arbitrary remand and the available legal remedies. Civic awareness is critical to engendering accountability and reinforcing public demand for justice sector reform.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the legal framework on remand proceedings, both at the Federal and State levels, imposes clear procedural safeguards to protect suspects from unlawful and prolonged detention. The courts and prosecuting authorities must strictly comply with these statutory provisions to ensure that the fundamental rights of suspects are not violated.  Hence, when strict compliance to these provisions have been achieved, the constitutional right to liberty of Nigerian citizens will be strengthened.

[1] (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 535 at 562 SC.

[2] ACJA 2015, S 296.

[3] ACJL Oyo State, section 295(1).

[4] Ibid, section 295(3).

[5] Ibid, section 295(4).

[6] Ibid, section 295(5)(a).

[7] Ibid, section 295(6).

[8] Ibid, section 295(7).