Imposing difficult and mostly impossible bail conditions, especially those requiring senior civil servants, cannot qualify for dispensation of justice, was the response of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), to the practice, which it says is becoming frequent in judicial space in recent years.
Afam Osigwe, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), President of the lawyer’s body in Nigeria who raised the issue warned that the trend was transforming bail into a tool for pre-trial detention.
The NBA boss, said courts and law enforcement agencies were increasingly imposing conditions that many defendants could not meet despite being granted bail, adding that the frequent insistence on sureties who are senior civil servants and demands for landed properties of high value had made it difficult for many accused persons to regain their freedom pending trial.
“The frequent insistence on sureties who are senior civil servants of specified grade levels, coupled with demands for landed properties of extraordinary value, has in many cases transformed bail from a mechanism for securing attendance at trial into a tool of pretrial detention.
“The consequence is that many persons who are constitutionally presumed innocent and have ostensibly been granted bail remain incarcerated because the conditions attached to their release are beyond their reach.”
Stressing that such imposition of stringent bail conditions undermined the constitutional right to personal liberty and weakens the presumption of innocence, he argued that that bails were intended to secure the attendance of an accused person in court and not to serve as a punishment before conviction.
He added: “It is neither a punishment nor a mechanism for imposing pre-trial incarceration by indirect means. The law is settled that bail conditions must be reasonable, practical, and capable of being fulfilled by the accused person.
“Conditions requiring sureties who are serving civil servants on specific salary grades, ownership of landed properties of extraordinary value, or other burdensome requirements effectively convert the grant of bail into a denial of bail.
“There is no evidence that civil servants are inherently more reliable as sureties than other law-abiding citizens. Such requirements unduly narrow the pool of eligible sureties and create artificial barriers to the enjoyment of a constitutional right.”
Advancing judicial authorities, he specifically cited position of the Court of Appeal in Dasuki v. Director-General, State Security Service & Ors, which criticised the practice of making serving public officers a mandatory category of sureties, adding that section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, also provides that while courts had discretion to grant bail, such conditions must not be excessive.
His words: “Courts must ensure that bail terms remain fair, proportionate and attainable. Courts must guard against imposing terms that render the grant of bail illusory or nugatory. Bail should not become a privilege reserved only for those with extraordinary means or connections but should remain a mechanism for securing attendance at trial while preserving the liberty of persons who have not been convicted of any offence.