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

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.]]>