Analysis / Justice Reform

by EditorJuly 20, 2025

FacebookTwitterWhatsAppLinkedInGmailShare

By Chidi Ezenwafor, MCIArb

Past Secretary, Nigerian Bar Association, Abuja Branch
Principal Partner & Lead Solicitor, Ezenwafor & Co.

⸻

Abstract

This paper examines the constitutional and legal propriety of the practice wherein Nigerian security agencies, particularly the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), require persons granted administrative bail to report weekly—often indefinitely—to sign a register or indicate their appearance. The analysis interrogates this practice against constitutional guarantees of liberty and freedom of movement, provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA), relevant judicial authorities, and comparative practices in advanced jurisdictions. It concludes that such indefinite reporting conditions, lacking temporal limits and judicial oversight, are unconstitutional, unlawful, and amount to constructive custodial surveillance under Nigerian law.

⸻

1. Introduction

In recent years, Nigerian security agencies—especially the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)—have institutionalized a practice whereby suspects granted administrative bail are required to report physically to the agency’s offices weekly to sign a register or otherwise indicate their appearance. Often, this reporting obligation extends indefinitely, even where no formal charges have been filed within a reasonable period.

This paper interrogates the constitutionality and legality of this practice under Nigerian law, with particular focus on the 1999 Constitution, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA), and judicial pronouncements. It also considers comparative standards from advanced jurisdictions to contextualize the propriety of this approach.

⸻

2. Legal Framework

2.1. Constitutional Guarantees

Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) enshrines the following fundamental rights relevant to this discourse:
• Right to Personal Liberty: Section 35(1) guarantees personal liberty, permitting deprivation of liberty only in accordance with a procedure permitted by law.
• Presumption of Innocence: Section 36(5) guarantees that every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• Freedom of Movement: Section 41(1) confers the right to move freely throughout Nigeria, subject only to restrictions “imposed by law” and reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

Collectively, these provisions safeguard individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable interference with their liberty and freedom of movement.

⸻

2.2. Statutory Provisions

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) regulates bail and related conditions as follows:
• Section 30 mandates release on bail for non-capital offences where investigations cannot be concluded within 24 hours (or 48 hours in remote areas).
• Section 165(1) prohibits the imposition of bail conditions that are excessive, oppressive, or unreasonable.
• Section 167(2) authorizes only those bail conditions reasonably necessary to secure the attendance of suspects during investigation or trial.

The EFCC Establishment Act, 2004, while conferring investigative powers, contains no express provision authorizing indefinite or repetitive reporting as a condition of administrative bail.

⸻

2.3. Judicial Precedents

Judicial decisions reinforce these constitutional and statutory protections:
• In Bamaiyi v. State (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 270, the Supreme Court emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable and tailored solely towards ensuring attendance at trial or assisting investigations.
• In Ogbonna v. FRN (2019) LPELR-46827(CA), the Court of Appeal held that once bail is granted, liberty is presumed, and any restrictive conditions must directly relate to ensuring attendance for investigation or trial.
• In Ezeadukwa v. Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 635, the Court stressed that indefinite or open-ended obligations imposed on individuals without legal authority amount to unlawful restrictions on liberty.

⸻

3. Legal Analysis of the Weekly Reporting Practice

The requirement of weekly physical reporting—often imposed indefinitely without formal charge—raises significant legal and constitutional concerns:
• Violation of Personal Liberty: Requiring weekly reporting without temporal limits amounts to an ongoing deprivation of liberty, outside judicial oversight and without lawful procedural backing, thus contravening Section 35(1) of the Constitution.
• Infringement of Freedom of Movement: Section 41(1) protects against restrictions not imposed by law. Weekly reporting obligations that serve no demonstrable investigative necessity unjustifiably curtail freedom of movement.
• Oppressiveness and Unreasonableness: Sections 165(1) and 167(2) of the ACJA permit only reasonable, non-oppressive bail conditions. Indefinite weekly reporting, often untethered from clear investigative progress, constitutes an oppressive and unreasonable condition.
• Undermining Presumption of Innocence: Compelling suspects to report continually creates an impression of custodial surveillance, effectively eroding the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Section 36(5).

Further, the absence of any formal mechanism for reviewing or reassessing the necessity of continued reporting exacerbates its oppressive nature.

⸻

4. Comparative Jurisdictional Practices

Comparative analysis reveals more rights-conscious frameworks in other jurisdictions:
• United Kingdom: Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), police bail reporting conditions are subject to proportionality tests, temporal limits, and judicial supervision. Indefinite reporting without charge is unlawful.
• United States: Pre-charge reporting obligations are minimal and rare. Reporting requirements typically emerge after formal charges are filed and are imposed by judicial order.
• South Africa: Pre-trial reporting conditions are permissible but must be sanctioned by judicial authorities, not imposed solely at the discretion of investigative agencies.

Across these jurisdictions, reporting obligations are time-bound, legally regulated, and subject to judicial oversight, unlike the indefinite, administratively imposed reporting practiced by Nigerian agencies.

⸻

5. Conclusion

While security agencies such as the EFCC are statutorily empowered to impose reasonable conditions to facilitate investigations, the practice of indefinite weekly reporting as a condition of administrative bail is constitutionally and legally indefensible.

This practice:
• Violates the right to personal liberty under Section 35(1);
• Breaches the right to freedom of movement under Section 41(1);
• Undermines the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Section 36(5);
• Contravenes statutory safeguards under Sections 165(1) and 167(2) of the ACJA.

Ultimately, the practice amounts to a form of constructive custodial surveillance, lacking statutory authority and infringing fundamental rights.

⸻

6. Recommendations

In light of the foregoing, the following measures are recommended:
• Judicial Challenge: Affected persons should consider initiating Fundamental Rights Enforcement proceedings under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 41 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of indefinite reporting requirements.
• Standardization of Bail Conditions: Security agencies should revise and standardize their administrative bail practices in compliance with Section 167(2) of the ACJA, ensuring that conditions imposed are strictly necessary, reasonable, and proportionate.
• Legislative Reform: The National Assembly should amend the EFCC Establishment Act and the ACJA to explicitly regulate pre-charge reporting conditions, incorporating procedural safeguards to prevent abuses of liberty.