See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334443381

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: An Empirical Study of Causes and Implications

of Delayed Justice by the Nigerian Courts

Article · July 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 99

1 author:

Muhammad Ribadu Ayuba

Ahmadu Bello University
5 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Irregular migration in Africa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Ribadu Ayuba on 13 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: An Empirical Study of Causes and Implications of
Delayed Justice by the Nigerian Courts

By

Ayuba, Muhammad Ribadu

Department of Sociology,
Faculty of Social Sciences,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Email: ribadoayuba@gmail.com
Tel: +2348036557188
Abstract

It is often said in a popular parlance that justice delayed is justice denied. Hence,
this study sets out to investigate the causes and implications of delayed justice by
the Nigerian courts in Katsina State. Marxist theory of law was reviewed to
provide adequate explanations and cogent understanding of the phenomenon
under study. Quantitative data was collected through questionnaire administration
while In-depth interview and Focus Group Discussions were employed to collect
the qualitative data. The findings of the study revealed that there was widespread
dissatisfaction among people with the performance of courts in the process of
justice administration. Factors ranging from inadequate courts’ facilities and
personnel, poor remuneration and welfare packages, political interference,
ineptitude of most judges and above all corrupt practices by judges, were found to
be among the chief causal factors of delayed justice by the Nigerian courts. The
findings equally revealed that the congestions experienced in the Nigerian prisons
were consequences of delay in dispensing justice by the courts, violation of
fundamental human rights of the accused; and that most of the prisoners were not
convicted but were rather Awaiting Trial Persons (ATPs), and based on their
status they were not provided for by the government. The ATPs- most of whom
are usually found innocent at the final hearing of their cases-suffer all agonies of
imprisonment. Based on these findings, the study recommended that the Federal
government should ensure judicial independence because the efficiency and
effectiveness of the justice system is hinged on the principles of impartiality and
neutrality of the judiciary. Equally, the process of recruitment into the judicial
service should be devoid of favouritism and nepotism. Merit should be the
guiding principle for selection of judges so that round pegs are put in round holes.
Key words: Delayed Justice, Criminal Justice Administration, Court, Awaiting
Trial Persons
1. Introduction

The role of the courts in the administration of justice is sacrosanct to the stability of human
society. The judiciary is ideally regarded as the last hope for the oppressed considering the lofty
responsibility of justice dispensation assigned to them by the society. A reputed chief justice of
South Africa once posited that ‘the executive might transgress, the legislature might become
unruly but it has always been the judiciary that has stood the test of time by standing firm on the
side of truth and justice’ (Masunda, 2009:1).

One of the cardinal objectives of the judiciary as the third arm of government is the defence and
upholding of the constitution and assuring that the rule of law prevails at all time. Thus, the work
of the judiciary, under this general duty and mandate reflects the level of a court’s jurisdiction to
some extent (Ladner, 2000:1). Another important element in the role of the judiciary at every
level is the protection of the citizens’ human and constitutional rights and defending them from
each other’s wrong doing. Thus, the judiciary protects the weak from the strong, the poor from
the rich and the powerless from the powerful. Moreover, the judiciary plays a significant role of
ensuring order and tranquillity by providing an enabling and institutionalized structure for the
resolution of conflict and dispute and the acquittal of civil and criminal wrongdoing through the
courts. The courts, thus, are the frameworks within which people seek redress and settlement of
discords and disputes that cannot be effectively achieved elsewhere.

The effectiveness of the courts lies not only in their ability to be fair, firm and ultimately neutral,
but also for the justice to be dispensed timely. However, despite these crucial roles of the
judiciary, the judicial process is often painstakingly slow and leaves much to be desired. This has
made many people lose confidence in using the courts as it is mostly believed that delayed
justice is denied justice. The effects of these delays are usually manifested in overcrowding of
prisons with mostly Awaiting trial persons (ATPs). These delays in justice administration are not
peculiar to one specific region of the world; they are a universal social phenomenon, even though
the intensity of the problem may vary between countries. For instance, a report by The
International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS) in 2013, revealed that the United States of
America (U.S.) had the largest population of ATPs which was about 487,000, followed by Brazil
with 190,000, Mexico 38,000; Peru, Columbia and Argentina had about 34,000 respectively
(ICPS, 2013). The studies equally revealed that due to high rate of ATPs, 10 to 40 percent of the

2
inmates in the Americas are imprisoned without a conviction. Other countries with high rate of
ATPs include Bolivia (83.6 %), Paraguay (71.2 %), Haiti (67.7 %), Venezuela (66.2%),
Dominican Republic (64.7 %), Uruguay (64.6 %), Panama (60.8 %), Peru (58.6 %), Guatemala
(54.4 %), Argentina (52.6 %), and Honduras (50.1 %), Sri Lanka (62.4 %) (ICPS, 2013).

Africa, where ATPs form the majority of the prisoners (70 to 90%), is not an exception to this
ugly trend (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, 2013; Walmsley, 2012). In
fact, the condition of ATPs in Africa is more worrisome considering the dearth of prison
facilities and even where there are, they are poorly managed and/or maintained. Thus, African
prisons are fraught with a plethora of problems such as decrepit facilities, congestion, inadequate
rehabilitative facilities, torture and general poor conditions of detention (ZLHR, 2013). In
Nigeria the problem of delayed justice resulting in the rise of ATPs seems more pervasive. For
instance, while the average time spent awaiting trial in the Europe (EU) is 167 days, the average
time spent by ATPs in Nigeria is 3 to 7 years in prison (ZLHR, 2013). Table 1 below shows
inmate population and percentages of ATPs in some selected north western Nigerian States:

Table 1: Inmates and ATPs population in Some Selected North Western Nigerian States
S/N PRISON (STATE) INMATE ATPs PERCENTAGE
POPULATION OF ATPs
1. Kaduna 778 611 78%
2. Kano 883 554 63%
3. Katsina 452 333 74%
4. Sokoto 620 350 57%
6. TOTAL 3,100 1,948
Source: Adapted from Agomoh (2012).

From the table 1 above, it can be seen that out of the total inmate population of Katsina prison,
the location of this study, a whopping figure of 333 (74 %) were all ATPs. These statistical
figures simply amplify the negative effects of delayed justice by the Nigerian courts.

1.1 The Problem

The problem of delayed justice by the Nigerian courts is certainly not a novel phenomenon.
However, its prevalence in the face of the country’s rapid population growth, implying a rise in
litigations, is what attracts attention. Thus, justice administration in Nigeria is so backlogged that
at least four-fifth (4/5th) of the countries’ prison population is made up of ATPs rather than
3
convicts (NHRC Kano, 2000). It is on record that as far back as 1997, due to the frequent
complaints on the deplorable condition of Nigerian prisons, the governing council of the
National Human Rights Commission undertook a fact finding visit to seven of Nigerian prisons.
The findings revealed that a prison with capacity of four thousand seven hundred and fifty four
(4,754) inmates contained eight thousand six hundred and five (8,605) inmates. Out of this
figure, the convicts were only two thousand two hundred and thirteen (2,213) thus, the number of
ATPs stood at six thousand four hundred and ninety two (6,492). The finding equally reveals that
some of the ATPs spent about ten to twenty years in prison (NHRC Kano, 2000).

Similarly, the Amnesty International (2008) revealed that out of the 40,000 prison inmates in
Nigeria, one third of them are ATPs and they live without access to medical facilities; there are
no mattresses or mats to sleep on and as such most of them sleep on the floor, no quality food
and they live in overcrowded, congested and inhumane environment. Stanley (2004) also found
that the Nigerian prison system suffers from lack of basic humanity; prison conditions are
dilapidating and destructive. Rehabilitation and reform of inmates do not feature predominantly
in the Nigerian prison system, which make the rate of recidivist very high. The sum total of all
these challenges point to the fact that, delay in the administration of justice poses serious threats
to the fundamental and constitutional rights of Nigerians.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The broad objective of the study is to explain the causes and implications of delayed justice by
Nigerian courts. Specifically, the study is aimed at addressing the following objectives:
i. To examine the nature of Nigerian courts in the administration of justice
ii. To determine the causes of delayed justice by the Nigerian courts
iii. To describe the implications of delayed justice by Nigerian courts

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This section consists of conceptual clarification and review of relevant literature in line with the
objectives of the study as well as the theory upon which the study is based.

2.1 Conceptual Clarification

4
The word delay, according to the Chambers Dictionary, means to slow someone or something
down or make them late. ‘Delay’ in justice administration was placed in the same category as
‘sale’ or ‘denial’ of justice in the Great Charter of England. The Chambers Dictionary also
defines ‘justice’ as ‘the quality of being just; just treatment; fairness’. Thus, justice
administration in this context entails an efficient and fair process of discharging judicial duties
usually in a speedy and just manner.

2.2 The Nature of Nigerian Courts

The executive, the legislature and the judiciary are the three most manifest and functional arms
of government in a democratic system. All the three are meant to be equal and co-ordinate
(Awogu, 1992:68). Each of the three arms is vested with certain powers to carry out its statutory
roles as enshrined in the constitution. Thus, the judicial powers are expressly vested in the courts
(Obaseki, 1994:7). Sub sections (1) and (2) of section 6 of the 1979 Constitution expressly
provides that; (1) the judicial powers of the federation shall be vested in the courts… (2) the
judicial powers of a state shall be vested in the courts….”

In Nigeria, the judiciary exists at two levels of court systems: the Federal Courts – which are
basically the appellate courts and the courts with jurisdiction over matters contained in the
exclusive list while the state courts exercise other judicial powers not covered by the Federal
courts. The provisions of the 1999 Constitution laid down provisions for the establishment and
powers of these courts in Nigeria. The judicial institutions include:

The Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal

The Federal High Court

The High Court of Federal Capital Territory Abuja

The High Court of a State

The National Industrial Court

The Sharia Court of Appeal of the FCT Abuja

5
The Sharia Court of Appeal of a State

The Customary Court of Appeal of the FCT

The Customary Court of Appeal of a State

The Courts as listed above, explains Olatokunbo (2008:158), “represent in a strict sense what
may be regarded as the Nigerian judiciary based on the constitutional provisions.” He contends
that the powers conferred on the courts (the judiciary) under the 1999 Constitution include
hearing and determining all disputes involving citizens; hearing and determining disputes
involving citizens and non-citizens with jurisdiction); hearing and determining all disputed cases
involving citizens and agencies of government (Olatokunbo, 2008:158).

The above presentation implies that the courts are located at the centre of judicial process in
Nigeria. Presently, Nigeria has thirty six states and the Federal Capital Territory and this implies
that there are thirty six state high courts because each state is a distinct legal entity and each legal
system is operated by its own system of courts.

2.3 Causes of Delayed Justice by Nigerian Courts

Despite the judicial divisions for administrative convenience, the Nigerian judiciary is plagued
by certain teething problems. Thus, a number of factors have been identified as responsible for
delayed justice by Nigerian courts. Agbede (2005) argued that the major problem causing
delayed justice is the fact that the Nigerian courts have not adapted the rules of English common
law to suit the existing reality of the Nigerian society. This ‘technical setback’ has largely
contributed to slowing the process of justice administration in Nigeria. However, other scholars
hold the view that congestion of cases in the courts is a chief factor that militates against the
speedy dispensation of justice in Nigeria. Congestion occurs when cases are filed at a rate far in
excess of what judges in the court’s jurisdiction can dispose of within a reasonable time (two
years). Obaseki (1994:9) noted that congestion of cases deprives litigants their fundamental right
of fair hearing within a reasonable time and ultimately defeats the basic objective of the Rule of
Law. It is, therefore, an obstacle to the speedy process of justice administration.

Olawoye (n.d) cited in Gloria (2014) however, argued that inadequacy of courts and personnel
are the causes of delayed justice by Nigerian courts. He further argued that the increase in

6
population in particularly major Nigerian cities and the growing suburbs and shanty towns has
not been met with a corresponding increase in the number of courts and their facilities. This fact
was stressed by Obiokoye (2005) who stated that when compared to its huge population, Nigeria,
as far back as 2005, had only about 43,953 lawyers called to bar; 707 High court and Sharia
court judges; 47 Federal high court justice; 46 courts of appeal justices and 15 justices of the
Supreme Court of Nigeria. This has evidently showed that speedy dispensation of justice will
remain elusive even if only 10% of the Nigerian population engages in litigation. Borokini
(2008) and Abubakar (2009) equally argued that an inadequate number of judges and facilities in
Nigerian courts, coupled with manual, working conditions such that judges still write in
longhand in a hostile courtroom contribute to the slow process of justice administration.
Abubakar (2009) and Bettina (2009) from their individual findings also observed that there was
inadequacy of equipment and facilities due to poor funding of Nigerian courts. They argued that
the obvious consequence of this problem is delay in justice administration.

Other scholars are of the view that stringent bail conditions which detainees are unable to fulfil
causes delay in speedy justice administration (Osinbajo and Kalu, 1990), (Okagbue, 1996).
However, Olateru-Olagbegi (2009) identified the continual transfer of investigating police
officers during trials as a causal factor. This is coupled with the poor investigative skills of crime
by most police in pre-trial investigations as well as late prosecution by the police. In similar
manner, Shah, Khan, and Farid, (2014) argued that delays occur in civil cases due to transfer of
judges from one court to another. Mann (2017), Abubakar (2009) and Bettina (2009) from their
individual studies revealed that poor remuneration and poor conditions of service for judges and
other court officials contribute to the delay of trials. The failure of government to provide
adequate shelter and vehicles to ease their movements constitute a clog in the wheel of justice.
He also identified poor funding of other components of justice administration as a causal factor
of slow dispensation of justice. These organs include the Police, Prison, National Drug Law
Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) as well as the Ministry of Justice. Chowdhury (2013), Hussain
et al. (2015) all argued that corruption in form of bribery and neglect of officials and
misconducts play a dominant role in the delay of justice administration. The corrupt practices are
so entrenched in the system that in most instances cases such as missing files or exhibits, non
service, non listing etc. become order of the day. In worst cases, ‘some Registrars and even

7
prosecutors have held parallel ‘courts’ in the court premises where they ‘settle’ parties for a fee’
(Balogun, 2016).

Lawyers also contribute to the delays in justice administration. In many instances the lawyers
come to the court unprepared and consequently request for adjournment of the case. Or simply
request for an adjournment because of the financial reward they get from their counsel on the
basis of number of times they appeared in the court (Mann, 2017). More so, some of the
incessant adjournments that are relevant to criminal cases are caused by the uncooperative
attitude or outright refusal of witnesses to give their testimony (Alegeh, 2015). This, often than
not, brings the process of speedy justice administration to its knees. In agreement with the
foregoing assertions, Balogun (2016) attributed the unpreparedness of the counsel to myriad of
factors such as illness, taking part in other courts’ engagements, family issues and unanticipated
problems etc. She equally argued that frequent political interference from people in authority as
well as relatives of the judicial officers contribute in slowing the process of justice dispensation.
The interference could also be in form of manipulating and maneuvering the process of
recruitment into the judicial system by sacrificing merit for mediocrity which often leads to the
emergence of a crop of lazy and undisciplined judicial personnel thereby delaying the flow of
court cases. Similarly, lack of commitment and deep knowledge of law by some judges has been
equally found to feature prominently among the factors militating against quick dispensation of
justice (Oyeyipo, 2005).

2.4 Implications of Delayed Justice by Nigerian courts

Delay in the administration of justice in Nigeria has far reaching implications. One of the most
glaring consequences of this is the rising number of ATPs in the already crowded Nigerian
prisons. Alegeh (2015) narrated that the total number of Prisoners in Nigerian Prisons in 1985
was 53,786 out of which 21,515 were ATPs. The figure by 1990 jumped to 55,331 inmates and
27,665 being ATPs. However, by 2014, the situation became worse than the previous years as
only 17,775 inmates were convicted out of the 56,785 total of inmates in the Nigerian prisons.
The remaining 39,010 were all ATPs. However, the most recent figure of prisoners in Nigeria as
of December 2017 was put at 72,384 with 48,527 of the figure being awaiting trial inmates. The
ATPs therefore constitute about 66 percent of the prison population (Enobore, 2017).

8
The United Nations (2006) report lamented that one of the major problems facing the prison
system in Nigeria is the swelling number of ATPs which constitute 64 percent of the total
inmates, many of whom are in prison for several years. The National Working Group on Prison
Reform and Decongestion (2005) equally found that of the 32,561 inmates, 20, 888 were ATPs
in a proportion of 64 percent.

Another important implication of delayed justice is the near absence of medical care and
adequate feeding for the inmates. The paucity of medical facilities and treatment in Nigerian
prisons leaves much to be desired. This is coupled with the acute food shortage despite the fact
that food represents 80 percent of annual prison expenditure and the prisons’ agricultural
programme meant to produce food in large quantities for consumption and commercial purpose
(Alegeh, 2015). The shortage of food supply to the inmates was so much that in 1987 at Benin
prison, twenty four inmates rioting over shortage in food supply were killed by an armed police
officer (Alegeh, 2015). The Guardian Newspaper of August 13, 2015 reported a number of
children born out of wedlock in Nigerian prisons who are serving with their mothers in the
prisons. Corroborating this view, the Nigeria Prison Service, in a report, stated that of the 56,785
inmates in six Nigerian prisons, 10 were babies with their mothers (Enobore, 2017).

Other scholars identified overcrowding of prisons as one of the immediate implications of

delayed trials. Ayade (2010) disclosed that overcrowding conditions in Nigeria have suppressed
the available correctional institutions and weakens ‘rehabilitation programmes, vocational and
educational training as well as recreational activities’. Thus, prisons in Nigeria house inmates in
excess of their original installed capacity (Gloria, 2014). For instance, in 2002, the Kirikiri
Maximum security prison had 2600 inmates in a facility that was originally erected to
accommodate 956 prisoners (Ifeanyi, 2012). This coupled with the dilapidating nature of the
prisons lead to incessant jailbreaks in Nigeria. In consonance with this assertion, Gloria (2014)
opined that jailbreaks in Nigeria are increasing at alarming rate. For instance in June 2008, 280
prisoners ran away in a prison break that took place in Onitsha prison, Anambra State and out of
this number only 195 were retrieved. In similar scenario, Bamgbose (2010) stated that eight
inmates were killed and eighteen others injured when over one thousand prisoners attempted to
run away from the prison having overpowered the prison guards. Another set of prisoners broke

9
out from the Olokuta Prison, Akure in June, 2012, where 175 inmates ran away through the help
of some unidentified gunmen (Gloria, 2014).

2.5 Theoretical Framework

The study uses Marxist theory of law to provide a cogent understanding of the causes and
implications of delayed justice by Nigerian courts. The proponents of this perspective include
Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Ralph Dahrendorf, Thompson, etc. The theory begins from the
premise that the mode of ownership of the means of production tend to tear society into two
major antagonistic classes. These include those who own the means of production and those who
do not own anything apart from their labour, form another class. The implication is that the
interest of the two classes will never be the same and so their relationship is always antagonistic
(Maliki, 2010). The interest of the class that possess the means of production is to maximize
profit and accumulate surplus value, while the proletariats on the other hand, are struggling to
quit their class and earn more money and integrity for their labour. Consequently, conflict occurs
as a result. Thus, the Marxist conception of law is that the law gives legitimacy to the ruling class
which controls the means of production and as such it is partisan and gives expression to the
value of bourgeoisies’ class at the detriment of the proletariat (Maliki, 2010).

2.6 Adoption of Theory

The Marxist conflict orientation is adopted in this study to explain the phenomenon of delayed
justice. The argument of Marx is that since the law is on the side of the ruling class, the
dispensation of justice is always delayed because the victims of the delay are mostly the less
privileged. Hence, most of the ATPs in Nigerian prisons are the poor, most of who can afford
neither court nor police bail, and even where they can afford it, they are usually denied. The
speedy delivery of justice is therefore ensured only when it serves the interest of the bourgeoisies
or the ruling class. The ruled or the masses are always the victims of the delay. Thus, you can
hardly find a bourgeoisie or a member of the ruling elites on remand in Nigerian prisons. The
investigation of cases by the police is usually characterized by favouritism and corruption where
the bourgeoisies are given a preferential treatment over the poor. The effects of prison
congestion, the psychological trauma, inadequate medications, insufficient food etc are all
experienced only by the poor or the masses in Nigerian prisons.

10
3. Methodology
The population of the study consists of the personnel of Nigerian Criminal Justice System and
institutions that are responsible for justice administration in Katsina State. Katsina State is made
up of three political zones (Katsina, Daura and Funtua zones). Thus, Katsina Local Government
Area (LGA), Daura LGA and Funtua LGA were purposively selected to represent their zones
respectively. Thereafter, stratified and simple random techniques of sampling were adopted for
the purpose of representativeness. The stratified sampling technique was applied in selecting
respondents in the courts (the judges, lawyers, registrars, defendants, and plaintiffs), police
(Divisional Police Officer, Criminal Investigation Divisional head, and rank and file), prison
staff and the general public. Thus, using simple random sampling technique, a sample size of 110
was drawn from all the strata. For the qualitative component of the study, 6 key informants were
purposively selected and three (3) FGD sessions conducted. Thus, the data was generated
through four complementary modes of data collection: survey, In-depth interviews, FGDs and
official documents. The quantitative data was analysed through simple frequency tables, while
the qualitative data was subjected to content analysis.
4. Data Presentation and Analyses

The views of respondents were sought so as to know their level of awareness of the problem of
delayed justice in Katsina metropolis. The table below shows the awareness level:
Table 1: Awareness Level of the Concept of Delayed Justice
Awareness of delayed justice Frequency Percentage
Aware 98 93.3%
Not aware 07 6.7%
Total 105 100.0%
Source: Field Survey, 2017
Table 1 above reveals that 93.3% of the respondents are aware of the phenomenon of delayed
justice. However, 6.7% claimed not to be aware of it at all. The IDI report corroborates this large
percentage of awareness as all the personalities interviewed showed their awareness on the issue.
This implies that majority of the respondents were aware of the problem of delayed justice by the
Nigerian courts.

Table 2: Factors Responsible for Delayed Justice

11
 Causes of delayed justice by Nigerian courts Frequency Percentage

Inadequate courts’ facilities and judicial personnel 57 54.3%

Poor remuneration for the judges 33 31.4%

Incompetent judicial personnel 07 6.7%

Frequent transfer of magistrate 05 4.8%

No response 03 2.9%

Total 105 100.0%

Source: Field Survey, 2017

With regard to the causes of delayed justice, table 2 above shows that 54% of the respondents
identified inadequacy of courts and judicial personnel as the main cause of delayed trials.
Meanwhile, 31% of the respondents perceived poor remuneration for the judges as the cause of
the delay, while 6.7% believe that it is the incompetent judicial personnel that hinder quick
dispensation of justice and 4.8% considered frequent transfer of magistrate as the cause. On the
other hand, the qualitative data collected revealed contrary views as most of the informants
identified corruption as the main factor responsible for delayed trials. An informant in an IDI had
this to say:

Corruption is so pervasive in the judiciary that at every point of case hearing one
form of corrupt practice is exhibited or the other. Issues such as missing files or
exhibits are very common.
This implies that despite the inadequacy of facilities and judges, the few available facilities are
often misused and the few judges tend to take undue advantage of the judicial process thereby
slowing the process of justice administration.

Table 3: The People Most Responsible for Justice Delay

People considered most responsible for the delay in the Frequency Percentage
administration of justice

12
 Judges/Legal practitioners 40 38.1%
Police (prosecutors) 25 23.8%
Public officials 35 33.3%
No response 05 4.8%
Total 105 100.0%
Source: Field Survey, 2017

Table 3 above shows that 38% of the respondents considered judges and legal practitioners as the
most responsible for the delay. Meanwhile, 33% of the respondents put the blame on the public
officials because they incessantly interfere in court cases and above all they appoint the judges,
while 24% of the respondents blamed the police, maintaining that the police lukewarm attitude
towards investigation of cases creates more problems in the dispensation of justice. This implies
that the judges and legal practitioners are the people most responsible for the delay in the
administration of justice. Explanations demanded on why they put the blame on such bodies
revealed that the judges are saddled with the responsibility of interpreting the law and that while
most of them are corrupt, some are simply lazy and incompetent because they got appointed into
those positions through a process that is devoid of merit. In an IDI with a human right activist in
the metropolis, he opined that:

When you are talking about delayed justice, the first set of people to point at is the
judges and lawyers and this is because while the judges always dance to the tune
of those who appointed them, most of the lawyers are lazy and demand for
adjournment of cases at the slightest excuse.
Thus, from the above data it can be deduced that the judges and lawyers take the largest share of
the blame for delay in dispensation of justice.

Table 4: Performance of the Courts as Rated by the Respondents

Performance of the courts Frequency Percentage

Satisfactory 13 12.4%

Very satisfactory 04 3.8%

13
 Not Satisfactory 79 75.2%

Indifferent 09 8.6%

Total 105 100.0%

Source: Field Survey, 2017

Table 4 shows that the highest percentage of the respondents was not satisfied with the
performance of the courts. Satisfaction in this regard means the ability of the courts to dispense
justice to people on time without violating any of their fundamental human rights. When this is
ensured, people become happy and satisfied. However, the reverse is the case as the IDI reports
also indicated strong dissatisfaction with the way justice is administered by the courts. An
informant stated that:

The way offenders are treated by the three organs of Nigerian Criminal Justice
System leaves much to be desired. The court in particular consists of so many
flaws from the lackasidical attitude of the judges to the corrupt and unprofessional
nature of the lawyers. Cases that are not expected to exceed months take years
due to incessant and irrational adjournments usually orchestrated by the corrupt
lawyers.
This view agrees with the view of a police officer interviewed in the Katsina Police Command
headquarters where he observed that:
Most of the judicial officers lack professionalism and commitment and as such
find it difficult to decide cases within a short period of time hence the incessant
adjournments of cases, even when the police have compiled all the necessary
reports about the accused.
This implies that majority of people are not happy with the poor performance of the courts and
they are vehemently opposed to the way the judicial personnel go about the process of justice
administration.

Table 5: Implications of Delayed Justice by Nigerian Courts

Statement SA A SD D Total
Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. ( %) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)
Delayed 50 (47.6) 26 (24.8) 18 (17.1) 11 (10.5) 105 (100.0)
justice leads to
prison
congestion
People spend 56 (53.3) 30 (28.6) 10 (9.5) 09 (8.6) 105 (100.0)

14
 longer time
awaiting trial
than if
convicted
ATPs suffer 56 (53.3) 26 (24.8) 12 (11.4) 11 (10.5) 105 (100.0)
psychological
trauma
Most of ATPs 58 (55.2) 29 (27.6) 07 (6.7) 11 (10.5) 105 (100.0)
are found
innocent when
their cases are
decided
Source: Field Survey, 2017
KEYS: SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, SD= Strongly Disagree, D= Disagree. Freq. =Frequency

Table 5 shows that 48% of the respondents strongly agreed that the prisons are congested as a
result of delayed justice by the courts. This is followed by 25% of them who also agreed, 17%
disagreed while 11%strongly disagreed. This implies that over 70% of the respondents share the
view that prisons are congested due to the delays in the administration of justice. This large
percentage was supported by the IDI report in an interview with a prison officer in Katsina
Prison who asserted that:
There is no doubt that our prisons are filled up because they do not only host
convicts but also ATPs, and this of course, has to do with the manner in which
cases are attended to in the courts.
On whether people spend longer time awaiting trial than if convicted, the table shows that 81%
of the respondents agreed while 19% disagreed with the view. This view was corroborated by the
IDI report in an interview with a human right activist in Katsina metropolis who opined that:
Many times we see instances where persons kept in custody awaiting trial spend
longer time than if convicted because sometimes the individual spends over five
years in custody but when his case is decided he ends up bagging a jail term of six
months jail term.
With regard to the psychological trauma inflicted on the ATPs by delayed justice 53% of the
respondents strongly agreed that the ATPs live in the indefinite agony of not knowing exactly
when their ordeal will be over. On the contrary, 11% strongly disagreed. This implies that
majority of the respondent share the view that ATPs are psychologically affected as most of

15
them do not know when their cases will be heard and as a result some become mentally retarded.
This view was confirmed by an ex-convict who opined that:

I hardly could differentiate between day and night, nor my left and right…I lived
in indefinite agony of not knowing my fate…anyway, glory be to Allah am out
eventually.
The table also shows that 55% of the respondents strongly agreed that most of the ATPs are
found innocent when their cases are finally decided. However, the IDI report revealed contrary
view as a judge interviewed in Katsina High court argued that:

Most of the ATPs are found guilty by the time their cases are decided and they are
convicted accordingly.
The implication of the findings above is that the slow dispensation of justice by Nigerian courts
has brought about psycho-social trauma unto the prison inmates particularly the ATPs who, by
law, are not expected to stay long before their cases are decided.

4.1 Discussion of Findings

From the findings of the study, it has been observed that inadequate courts’ facilities and
personnel is a key factor responsible for delay in dispensation of justice. This confirms a study
by Olawoye (n.d) cited in Gloria (2014) that inadequacy of courts and personnel are the causes
of delayed justice by Nigerian courts. He argued that the increase in population in, particularly
major Nigerian cities, and the growing suburbs and shanty towns has not been met with
corresponding increase in the number of courts and their facilities. Similarly, the finding further
corroborates findings from a research carried out by Borokini (2008) that inadequate number of
judges and facilities in Nigerian courts contribute to the slow process of justice administration.

Poor remuneration for judicial officers was also found to be a causal factor for delay in the
administration of justice in Nigeria. This view corroborated by Mann (2017) that poor
remuneration for the judges is the cause of delayed trials. The failure of government to provide
adequate shelter and vehicles to ease their movements constitute a clog in the wheel of justice.
He also identified poor funding of other components of justice administration such as the police
and the prison as a cause of slow dispensation of justice. The finding further conformed

16
Olawoye’s (n.d) cited in Gloria (2014) assertion that the remuneration offered to those on the
bench is poor, which has made it difficult to attract competent judicial officers.

Transfer of judges and the investigating police officers have also been found to cause delay in
dispensation of justice. This finding confirms a study by Shah, et al. (2014) that delays occur in
civil cases due to transfer of judges from one station to another. Similarly, the finding of the
study agree with Olateru-Olagbegi (2009) who identified the continual transfer of investigating
police officers during trials and poor investigative skills of crime by most police in pre-trial
investigations as well as late prosecution by the police as factors responsible for justice delay.

The study equally found that corruption among the judicial officers play a pivotal role in
delaying justice administration in Nigeria. This finding is in conformity with Chowdhury (2013),
Hussain et al. (2015) who asserted that corruption in form of bribery and neglect of official
duties and misconducts are major determinant of justice delay by Nigerian courts. The finding
further confirms the findings of Balogun (2016) where she identified missing files or exhibits as
corrupt practices that are very common among the judicial personnel in Nigeria.

With regard to the performance of the courts, the findings revealed that people are not satisfied
with their performance. This finding again confirms Olawoye’s (n.d) cited in Gloria (2014)
assertion that the performance of some of the judges leaves much to be desired. Some are lazy
while others are not committed, and cases are adjourned at the slightest excuse. Equally, many
lawyers frequently go to court unprepared. They manufacture all sorts of reasons why
adjournment should be granted and some are just simply incompetent.

On the implications of delayed justice, the study found that there is congestion of cases in the
courts which often occurs as a result of large cases against few judges. Thus, quick dispensation
of justice becomes a mirage. This finding confirms the findings of an earlier study by Obaseki
(1994:9) that congestion of cases delays justice and deprive litigants their rights to a quick fair
hearing thereby defeating the objective of the rule of law.

The finding also revealed that one of the most glaring implications of delayed justice is the
growing number of ATPs in Nigerian prisons. This finding confirms United Nations (2006)
report that 64% of prisoners in Nigeria are ATPs. Furthermore, the findings also revealed that
most of the ATPs spend longer time awaiting trial than if convicted. This finding confirms the

17
assertion made by Ayade (2010) that the delay in the administration of justice is the cause of
prison congestion, and that ATPs stay longer than most convicts without benefitting from any of
the rehabilitative and reformative programmes in the prison as their status does not qualify them.
The finding also showed that most of the ATPs turn out to be innocent when their cases are
decided. This finding confirms the annual report of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC
Kano, 2000) that some ATPs are found innocent when their cases are finally decided.

Similarly, the Marxist theory of law adopted in this study has adequately explained the problem
of delayed justice by the Nigerian courts. In agreement with the theory, the study revealed that
the dispensation of justice is often delayed when the victims involved are from the proletariat or
the less previledged. Thus, most of the ATPs are poor who can neither afford police nor court
bails. On the other hand, when the case involves the ruling elites, a speedy delivery of justice is
ensured as they are granted both police and court bails. Thus, the investigation of cses by the
police or hearing court cases in Nigeria are usually characterized by corruption as the
bourgeoisies are accorded preferential treatment at the expense of the poor.

5. Summary of Major Findings

In terms of the performance of the courts, the findings showed that the public is not satisfied with
the way the courts administer justice. Thus, corruption, poor remuneration, inadequate courts and
incompetent judicial personnel were found to be the major factors responsible for poor
performance of the courts.

Concerning the meaning and causes of delayed justice, the investigation started with an inquiry
of the level of awareness and the findings revealed that majority of the respondents were aware
of the phenomenon of delayed justice. However, the respondents conceived the term in different
ways but majority of them view it as the inability of the courts to hear cases and pass judgment
within a reasonable time. Also, the inadequacy of courts and judicial personnel as well as poor
remuneration for judges was cited as the major causes of delayed justice by the courts. People
tend to go for those jobs that have higher remuneration, and because the remuneration offered to
those on bench is poor, it becomes difficult to attract competent judicial officers.

With regard to the people most responsible for the delay, the study indicated that the judges and
other legal practitioners were the most responsible. Explanations demanded on this revealed that

18
the attitude of most of the judges leaves much to be desired, because most of the judges are
corrupt, some are just incompetent especially considering the teeming number of cases to be
attended to by a handful of less committed judges.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

The findings of the study revealed numerous factors affecting the speedy dispensation of justice
by the courts which range from the inadequacies in courts and court personnel, poor
remuneration and welfare packages for the judges as well as the corrupt attitude of most of the
judges, prosecutors, lawyers etc. The implication of this delay has been found to be grievous and
numerous. It includes overcrowding the prisons, violation of fundamental human rights,
injustice, and brutality, breakdown of law and order, growing number of ATPs, to mention but
few. Based on the findings, therefore, the study concludes that all agencies of the administration
of justice do not meet the expectation of the general public. Thus, the study makes short and long
term recommendations.

In terms of the short term recommendations the Federal government should ensure judicial
independence. This is because the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system is hinged on
the principles of impartiality and neutrality of the judiciary. There should be no political
interference for whatsoever reason in the process of justice administration. Also, the process of
recruitment into the judicial service should be devoid of favouritism and nepotism. Merit should
be the guiding principle of selection of judges so that round pegs are put on round holes. The
Federal government should equally ensure adequate medical facilities, food, shelter, mattresses,
good drinking water etc for the prisoners. These, if provided, will ensure good life for all
prisoners in Nigeria.

With regard to the long term recommendations, considering the growing number of litigants,
there is need for recruitment of more judges to be dedicated to specialized courts to handle
special cases such as corruption and other related offences so as to speed up the process of
justice administration in Nigeria. In a bid to reduce backlog of cases in Nigerian courts, the
federal government should consider designing of alternative system of justice administration
especially for civil cases. This will go a long way in decongesting court cases and by implication
decongesting the Nigerian prisons. Similarly, the Federal Government, in conjunction with

19
various state governments should provide courts with separate structures where ATPs will be
kept in custody while they await their judgments. Doing this will make it possible for suspects to
be separated from dangerous and hardened convicted criminals, who are most likely to initiate
the suspects into other forms of criminality.

References
Abubakar, K.T. (2009). “An Assessment of the operations of Area Courts in Kubwa and Gudu in
FCT”. An unpublished project submitted to the P.G. School, ABU Zaria in partial
fulfilment for the award of the Master degree of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
(MLC)
Agbede, I.O. (2005). ‘Dynamics of Law Reform Enterprise’: Nigerian Experience. In Nigerian
Bar Journal. (5) 3. Nigerian Bar Association, pp50-64
Agomoh, U. (2012). Prison Decongestion and Reforms in Nigeria – Issues and Methods.
Retrieved from: www.prawa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Prison-Decongestion-and-
Reform.pdf. [Accessed on 16/05/2018
Alegeh, A. (2015). The Case for Prison Reform in Nigeria: The plight of persons awaiting trial –
the way forward for prison reforms in Nigeria. A paper presented at the NBA conference
on the 23 August, 2015 at the International Conference Centre Abuja
Amnesty International. (2008). Nigeria: Criminal Justice System Utterly Failing Nigerian
People. Available at https://www.amnesty.org/press-releases/2008/02/nigeria-criminal-
justice-system-utterly-failing-nigerianpeople- majority/
Awogu, O. (1992). ‘Enforcement of Court Orders and the Stability of Government and
Society,MIJ Publishers Ltd, Lagos.
Ayade, A.E. (2010). Problems of Prison Overcrowding in Nigeria: Some Lessons from South
Africa and America. A thesis submitted to the Central European University, Budapest,
Hungary
Balogun, H.A. (2016). Enhancing speedy dispensation of justice: Practical hints on case flow
Management. A paper presented at the conference of all Nigerian judges of the lower
courts. Retrieved from the google online.com [Accessed on 23 January 2018.
Bamgbose, O. (2010). The sentence, the sentencer, the sentenced: Towards penal reform in
Nigeria, Ibadan, Ibadan University press.
Borokini, A.A. (2008). Fast tracking the Administration of Justice in Nigeria, Akungba Law
Journal, Vol 1, No 2.
Bettina, A.O. (2009). “An Assessment of the Operations of Chief Magistrate Courts Bwari,
Abuja”. A project submitted to the P.G. School, A.B.U Zaria, in partial fulfilment for the
award of the Master degree of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (MLC)
Chambers Biographical Dictionary (2007). The Chambers Concise Dictionary. Hodder and
Stoughton, 8th Edition, USA
Chowdhury, M.M. (2013). A Study on Delay in the Disposal of Civil Litigation: Bangladesh
Perspective. The International Journal of Social Sciences 14(1):27-35.
Craven, G. (2007). Reforming the High Court,Oxford publishers,UK Encyclopaedia of Social
Sciences, Macmillan, 1980, Vol. IX.
Enobore, F. (2017). “66% of Nigerian prisons inmates are awaiting trial” Nigeria Prison
Service, Reported in The Premium Times December 17, 2017

20
Gloria, S.D. (2014). Challenges of Imprisonment in the Nigerian Penal System: The Way
Forward. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Vo1. 2, No. 2, 2014, 94-
104 DOI: 10.11634/232907811402535
Hussain, M., Dinar, H., Ghazanfar, S. (2015). Prolonged litigations: Finding causes and factors
impeding justice provision in Pakistan. The Explorer Islamabad Journal of Social
Sciences Retrieved from www.theexplorerpak.org [Accessed on January 23, 2018

ICPS, (2013). ‘World Prison Brief’ International Center for Prison studies, Available at:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/ (Prison population total (including pre-trial
detainees / remand prisoners); retrieved from: www.prisonstudies.org.
Ifeanyi, M. (2002). Nigerian Prisons: What hope for for inmates? Thisday online,
http://thisdayonline.com/achieve/2002/63/02 cited in Bamgbose (2010) p 55

Ifeodu,O. (1992): Annual Report on Human Right in Nigeria, Civil Liberty Organization.
Ladner, J. (2000): ‘Role of the Judiciary’. Retrieved from www.smartvoter.org. Accessed on 15
July, 2011.
Maliki, A.S. (2010): Unpublished lecture materials prepared for Sociology of law. Department of
Sociology, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria.
Mann, D.G. (2017). Curbing delays in the administration of justice: case management in the
Magistrate courts. A paper presented at the orientation course for newly appointed
magistrates. Retrieved from googleonline,com [Accessed on January 23, 2018
Masunda, M.A. (2009): ‘The Role the Judiciary Must Play in Society’. Retrieved from
www.smartvoter.org. Accessed on 15 July 2011
National Working Group on Prison Reform and Decongestion (2005). Prison Reforms system
and Inmate Welfare in Nigeria. Retrieved from https://www.omicsonline.org/.../prison-
reforms-system-and-inmates-welfare-in-nigeria. [Accessed on 16/05/2018.
NHRC Kano, (2000). ‘The plights of inmates in the Nigerian prisons’ Quarterly publication.
Retrieved from http//www.prisonreform/humanrightscommission.org, Accessed on
23/4/2014
Obaseki, A.O. (1990). ‘Constitutional Structure and the Position of the Judiciary –Interpretative
Jurisdiction of the Courts and Interpretation of Other Statutes’. In Judicial Lectures:
Continuing Education for the Judiciary. Lagos.
Obiokoye, O. (2005). Eradicating Delay in the Administration of Justice in African Courts: A
comparative analysis South Africa and Nigerian Courts. Retrieved from
www.smartvoter.org. Accessed on 15 July 2011
Okagbue, I.E.(1996). Bail reform in Nigeria, Ibadan, Caltop Publications (Nig) Ltd

Olateru-Olagbegi, O. (2009). Delay and Congestion in the Administration of justice, Akungba

Law Journal,Vol 1. No 3.
Olatokunbo, S. (2008). The Rule of Law: A Panacea to Corruption. Retrieved from
http//www.onlinefreearticles/nasajournals.org1&3. Accessed on 15 July 2011
Onyekpere, E. (1996). Justice for Sale: A Report of the Administration of Justice in the
Magistrate and Customary Courts of Southern Nigerian. Lagos: Retrieved from
http//www.justicedelayed/civillibertyorganization.org, Accessed on 15 July 2011
Osinbajo, Y. and Kalu, A. (1990). Law development and administration in Nigeria (Eds.). Law
Review Series. Federal Ministry of Justice, Nigeria.

21
 Oyeyipo, T.A. (2005). “Commentary on the paper: ‘Evaluation of Judges’ Performance: The
Role of the National Judicial Council by Hon. Justice B.O. Babalakin, CON,’” All
Nigeria Judges’ Conference Abuja Nigeria
Sabharwal, Y.K. (2005): ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Good Governance’. Paper presentation at
Faculty of law, 1973 edition, University of Lagos. Retrieved from www.smartvoter.org.
Accessed on 15 July 2011
Shah, R.U., Khan, S.U, Farid, S. (2014): Causes for Delay in Civil Justice in Lower Courts of
Pakistan: A Review. Pakistan Journal of Criminology 6(1):47- 67.
International Centre for Prison Studies, World Prison Brief, available
at:http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/ (Prison population total (including pre-
trial detainees / remand prisoners)
Stanley, I. (2004). “Improving prison conditions in Nigeria” Vanguard Friday October 22, 2004,
p. 26.
United Nations (2006). ‘Assessment if the Integrity and Capacity of the Justice System in Three
Nigerian States’, Technical Assessment Report, Vienna
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013). Handbook on strategies to reduce
overcrowding in prisons. New York, NY: United Nations; Retrieved
from http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison
reform/Overcrowding_in_prisons_Ebook.pdf
Walmsley, R. (2012). World pre-trial/Remand imprisonment list. (2nd ed.). International Centre
for Prison Studies; Retrieved October 30, 2016, from www.prisonstudies.org
Zimbabwe Law and Human Rights (2013). Pre-trial Detention in Zimbabwe: Analysis of the
criminal justice system and conditions of pre-trial detentions. ZLHR, Law society of
Zimbabwe, the University of the Western Cape. [Accessed online on 16/05/2018

22

View publication stats