PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, HUMAN DIGNITY, AND THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE IN NIGERIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT: A LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE

CONTRIBUTOR: Chinwendu Okosa

INTRODUCTION

The principles of presumption of innocence, human dignity, and prohibition of torture lie at the very core of a fair and democratic criminal justice system. In Nigeria, these rights are solemnly enshrined in the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Particularly, Section 36(5) states that “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty”, while Section 34(1) upholds the dignity of every person and equally forbids torture or any degrading treatment.

These constitutional safeguards align with Nigeria’s international and regional human rights obligations, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention Against Torture (CAT) and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Anti-Torture Act of 2017 strengthened these frameworks by making torture a crime under domestic law, demonstrating a legislative commitment to protect human rights.

Nonetheless, there is still a large gap between legal requirements and actual practice. There are numerous reports of regular torture by law enforcement and security personnel, particularly in infamous units like SARS (Special Anti-Robbery Squad), where mistreatment is employed to get confessions, frighten suspects, or punish suspected criminals.

Despite the enactment and adoption of relevant legislation, the enforcement and implementation of the laws have been weak, with few prosecutions. In very recent times, there has been an upsurge in demand for the protection and respect of the right to dignity in Nigeria. We have witnessed time and again the flagrant disregard for the right to the dignity of human persons by many of the security outfits in Nigeria. Notwithstanding the existence of laws that recognise, establish, and guarantee the constitutional right to dignity of human persons, presumption of innocence and Prohibition of torture, we still have various incidents of breach of the same right, especially by federal and state agencies who are meant to be gatekeepers of this right.

It is now commonplace that the flagrant violation of fundamental human rights by the government and its agencies in Nigeria has become a recurrent topical issue in human rights conferences locally and internationally.^[1] The incessant breach of fundamental rights, and in particular, the right to dignity, by federal and state agencies often leads to social tensions, conflicts, and a breakdown of social cohesion. This has also proven to have an adverse effect on the economy as well as the general perception of the government and its agencies. The End SARS protest is a good case study on this point. Furthermore, despite the ban on SARS,^[2] the incidence of the breach of constitutional rights, particularly the right to dignity, is still on the rise, and this breach is most common in relation to detainees and prisoners.^[3]

This paper examines the legal basis for these fundamental rights in Nigeria, along with a critical assessment of how they are applied in practice. In order to guarantee that the presumption of innocence, human dignity, and the prohibition of torture are respected, not just statutorily, but also in the day-to-day operations of Nigerian law enforcement, it examines the structural obstacles to reform and makes specific recommendations.

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY, THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE, AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

The right to human dignity and the prohibition of torture are universally acknowledged as non-derogable rights under international human rights law^[4]. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)^[5] clearly states that no individual shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment. This stance is reinforced by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Furthermore, the United Nations Convention Against Torture (1984) offers a detailed legal framework obligating state parties to criminalise torture, conduct thorough investigations into alleged violations, and provide appropriate remedies for victims^[6].

The right to human dignity and the prohibition of torture are equally recognised at the regional level in Africa. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981), to which Nigeria is a signatory, explicitly guarantees these rights, emphasising the inherent dignity of every person and their entitlement to protection from torture and other inhumane acts. Article 5 of the Charter provides that “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment, shall be prohibited.”

More elaborately, General Comment No. 4 (2023) on Article 5^[7] obliges State parties to establish prompt, impartial investigations, prosecute perpetrators, and provide adequate redress, including rehabilitation, compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition. The Comment affirms that victims must have access to justice through independent mechanisms and that states bear positive obligations to prevent and address torture effectively. Nigeria, having ratified the Charter, is legally bound to domesticate and give full effect to its provisions, in line with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, which governs treaty implementation.

The right to the dignity of human persons and the prohibition of torture are also enshrined within Nigeria’s domestic legal framework. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) guarantees these rights under Section 34(1), which provides that “Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.” In addition, the presumption of innocence is also constitutionally enshrined in Section 36(5) of the CFRN, which provides that “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.” This provision imposes a legal burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt^[8] and forbids any form of prejudgment, including public parading of suspects or media trials that suggest guilt prior to conviction.

To reinforce these constitutional rights, Nigeria enacted the Anti-Torture Act 2017, which adopts a comprehensive legal definition of torture, criminalises it, and prescribes strict penalties for violators. The Act further provides that any confession obtained through torture is inadmissible in court proceedings. This aligns with the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011, which also prohibits the use of coerced confessions particularly Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act provides that if the confession was caused by any form of oppression, it shall not be admissible. These provisions collectively reinforce the constitutional and statutory prohibition of torture by ensuring that no confession obtained through coercion, intimidation, or torture is admissible as evidence. Complementing this framework, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 strengthens the presumption of innocence and protects detainees from abuse by mandating humane treatment of suspects^[9].

Nigeria’s determination to domesticate and carry out its human rights obligations is demonstrated by these legislative measures. However, the full implementation of these protections in routine law enforcement and judicial processes is still hampered by the ongoing discrepancy between the law and practice, lax institutional enforcement, and a culture of impunity among security agencies.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NIGERIA

Reports from human rights organisations, including Amnesty International^[10] and Human Rights Watch,^[11] indicate that torture and inhumane treatment are pervasive in Nigeria’s security operations. Law enforcement agencies, particularly the police and military, have been accused of using torture as a means of extracting confessions, punishing suspects, and instilling fear. The Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), before its disbandment in 2020, was notorious for extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and brutal torture methods.^[12] Similar patterns have been documented within military operations against insurgent groups, where civilians are often subjected to degrading treatment under the guise of counterterrorism efforts.^[13]

The judiciary serves as a critical mechanism for upholding human rights and providing redress for victims of torture.^[14] Courts have the power to hold perpetrators accountable, award compensation to victims, and declare violations unconstitutional. However, the judicial process in Nigeria is often slow, expensive, and susceptible to political influence. ^[15]The lack of judicial independence in prosecuting security officials accused of torture has led to limited convictions, fostering a climate of impunity.

CHALLENGES CONFRONTING ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN NIGERIA

1. Knowledge of Legal Right: There is often a lack of awareness of these legal rights, particularly among citizens they have been enacted to protect. The Anti‑Torture Act of 2017, the 2015 Administration of Criminal Justice Act, and related statutes are often unfamiliar to the general public. Also, capacity-building programmes repeatedly highlight that many frontline personnel are unaware of these statutes. Victims, for their part, are usually unaware of the rights that protect them or the avenues for redress that the law provides. Research reveals that more than half of the individuals subjected to torture do not identify their experience as a rights violation, a misapprehension that effectively silences complaints and thwarts the pursuit of accountability^[16].
2. Weak Oversight and Lack of Accountability Mechanisms: The absence of independent and effective oversight mechanisms allows human rights violations to persist.^[17] Existing bodies, such as the Police Service Commission and National Human Rights Commission, often lack the authority, resources, or political will to hold perpetrators accountable, leading to unchecked violations.
3. Culture of Impunity among Security Forces: The security agencies in Nigeria seem to be the major violators of human rights in Nigeria. Ordinarily, a suspect arrested for any offence is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and ought to be promptly informed in writing of the reasons for his arrest. In reality, the suspect is practically denied all these constitutionally entrenched rights, and suspects are subjected to all manner of torture. Most police officers interviewed conceded that in the absence of an efficient means of investigating crimes, torture becomes the quickest means of extracting information from suspects. However, due to weak enforcement of legal provisions, security personnel often evade prosecution. This culture of impunity emboldens further abuses and weakens public trust in law enforcement institutions.
4. Inactiveness of Human Rights Bodies: Most of these bodies that have the protection of human rights as their primary aim are inactive and mostly exist only on paper. They do not carry out their functions as provided in the various instruments establishing them. For example, the National Human Rights Commission needs to do more to ensure the protection of human rights and help victims.
5. Poverty: Poverty is one of the problems that is challenging the enforcement of the rights available to Nigerians. As Justice Aguda rightly noted, these rights mean little to people who are living in extreme poverty, as they lack the means to enforce them.^[18] Oputa JSC also described poverty as a modern form of slavery, highlighting how it traps people in situations where their rights are constantly violated without remedy.^[19]

For instance, a poor person unlawfully detained by the police often remains in detention because their family cannot afford legal fees to challenge the detention in court. Many people remain in custody for long periods without trial simply because they cannot afford a lawyer or take any legal action to defend their rights. Poverty, therefore, turns constitutional rights into empty promises for the poor.

1. Intimidation and Systemic Suppression of Complaints: Victims and human rights activists who report cases of torture and abuse frequently face threats, harassment, or unlawful detention from law enforcement agencies.^[20]This systemic suppression discourages whistleblowing and prevents the documentation of violations, making accountability efforts even more difficult.
2. Inadequacy of the Court System: The court has likewise played some roles in the violation of human rights. The existing system of administration of justice in Nigerian courts is grossly inadequate. Access to courts and justice is obstructed by inefficient legal aid,^[21] court congestion, high costs of litigation, poor condition of service of judicial workers, cumbersome system of recording court proceedings (leading to delay and abuse of processes), archaic and non-uniform rules of procedure, and corruption in the clerical and administrative cadres.^[22] The delay in court proceedings is one that has prevented many persons from having recourse to the court when aggrieved. Despite the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and its similar provisions in various states, and even the FREP Rules that all aim to pave the way for faster dispensation of justice, the situation still persists.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Strict Enforcement of Anti-Torture Laws and Judicial Reforms: There should be thorough investigations, prosecutions, and penalties for human rights violations, alongside judiciary reforms to promote intelligence-based, non-coercive investigations.
2. Independent Oversight & Institutional Strengthening: There should be a specialised, independent body to investigate and prosecute torture cases, with increased funding for the National Human Rights Commission and Legal Aid Council to enhance human rights enforcement.
3. Use of Technology for Transparency & Accountability: There should be widespread adoption of body cameras, CCTV in detention centres, and digital case tracking to prevent and monitor human rights abuses.
4. Mandatory Human Rights Training for Law Enforcement: There should be compulsory training for security forces on ethical policing, human rights compliance, and non-violent investigation methods.
5. Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Whistleblowers: There should be stronger legal safeguards to shield activists, journalists, and whistleblowers from threats, harassment, or retaliation.

CONCLUSION

Constitutional rights, being fundamental, are meant to be enjoyed by all citizens and protected by the highest law of the land. However, these rights are often violated by the very government agencies tasked with upholding them. This calls for urgent action by the government to lead by example in respecting human rights and upholding democratic values. The presumption of innocence, the right to dignity, and the prohibition of torture must move from theory to practice. Until law enforcement sees every citizen as a rights-holder, these constitutional guarantees will remain empty promises. It is the collective duty of the judiciary, legislature, civil society, and the people to ensure these rights are not only recognised but respected and protected in everyday reality.

REFERENCE

1. FO Abimbola and OC Benson, ‘Violation of Fundamental Human Rights by Government and its Agencies in

   Nigeria: How Effective is Judicial Intervention?’https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4335300 accessed 18^th July, 20235 ↑

2. The Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) unit of the Nigerian Police Force ↑
3. Learn Nigerian Law, ‘Right to the Dignity of the Human’ https://www.learnnigerianlaw.com/learn/humanrights/dignity accessed 18th July, 2025 ↑
4. Council of Europe, ECHR Article 15 – Registration and Notification by Treaty Office https://rm.coe.int/echr-article-15-registration-and-notification-by-treaty-office/1680a5c121 accessed 20 July 2025. ↑
5. Article 5 of UDHR ↑
6. Articles 4, 12, 13, 14 ↑
7. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, General Comment No 4 on Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Redress for Victims of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment (2017) https://nuhanovicfoundation.org/database/2017-african-commission-on-human-and-peoples-rights-general-comment-no-4-on-article-5-of-the-african-charter-on-human-and-peoples-rights-the-right-to-redress-for-victims-of-torture-and-other-cruel-inh/ accessed 20 July 2025 ↑
8. Section 135 (1) (2) of Evidence Act, 2011 ↑
9. Section 8 ↑
10. Amnesty International, ‘Torture in Nigeria: In summary’ < https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/afr440052014en.pdf> Accessed 18^th July, 2025 ↑
11. Human Rights Watch, ‘Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ < https://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/nigeria0705/6.htm> Accessed 18^th july, 2025. ↑
12. BE Ecoma, ‘A post-mortem assessment of the #EndSARS protest and police brutality in Nigeria’ African Human Rights Law Journal (2023) 23(1), 156-181. ↑
13. UA Nwagwu and OU Enwelum, ‘Analysis of Human Rights Implication During Counter-Terrorism Operations in Nigeria’ NAUJILJ (2024) 15(2), 29-39. ↑
14. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), s46. ↑
15. LL Lakai, ‘The Nigerian judiciary in the 21st century and the challenges in justice delivery’ < https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/de/10.5771/2363-6262-2017-3-424.pdf?download_full_pdf=1> Accessed 18^th July, 2025. ↑
16. Ngozi Egenuka, ‘Time to create awareness, end impunity by criminalising torture’ The Guardian Nigeria (Lagos, 17 August 2021) https://guardian.ng/features/law/time-to-create-awareness-end-impunity-by-criminalising-torture/ accessed 20 July 2025. ↑
17. NH Woruh-Okolie and CO Joseph-Asoh, ‘Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Human Rights Protection in Nigeria: Challenges and Pathways to Effective Enforcement’ Fountain University Law Journal (2024) 1(2), 200-219. ↑
18. Tokunbo Orimobi LP, ‘Challenges to the Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights in Nigeria’ (Business Day, 2015) ↑
19. Ibid ↑
20. Human Rights Watch, ‘Everyone’s in on the Game: Corruption and Human Rights Abuses by the Nigeria Police Force’ https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/08/17/everyones-game/corruption-and-human-rights-abuses-nigeria-police-force Accessed 18^th July, 2025. ↑
21. O Onyema and LA Oti-Onyema, ‘Limitations of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria: Need for Action Plan’ International Journal of Law and Clinical Legal Education (2020) 1(1), 149-158. ↑
22. O Oko, ‘Seeking Justice in Transitional Societies: An Analysis of the Problems and Failures of the Judiciary in Nigeria’ Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2005) 31(1), 9-80 ↑