By SOLOMON OKPO
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has expressed concern over what it describes as the growing trend of excessive and impractical bail conditions imposed by courts and law enforcement agencies across the country, warning that the practice is undermining the constitutional right to liberty and the fundamental purpose of bail.
In a statement on the administration of criminal justice, the association noted that agencies such as the Nigeria Police Force, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and other security institutions increasingly require accused persons to meet stringent bail conditions that are often impossible to satisfy.
According to the NBA, demands for sureties who are senior civil servants on specific grade levels, as well as requirements for landed properties of extraordinary value, have effectively transformed bail from a legal mechanism designed to secure attendance at trial into a form of indirect pre-trial detention.
The association lamented that many individuals who are constitutionally presumed innocent remain in custody despite being granted bail because the conditions attached to their release are beyond their financial and social reach.
“Bail is a constitutional safeguard intended to secure the attendance of an accused person in court while preserving personal liberty pending the determination of guilt or innocence. It is neither a punishment nor a tool for imposing pre-trial incarceration through the back door,” the statement said.
The NBA emphasized that the law is settled on the principle that bail conditions must be reasonable, practical, and capable of being fulfilled by the accused person.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Suleman & Anor v. Commissioner of Police, Plateau State (2008), the association noted that the primary objective of bail pending trial is to grant pre-trial freedom to an accused person whose appearance in court can be secured through appropriate conditions.
The association further criticized the increasing reliance on conditions that it described as disconnected from Nigeria’s prevailing economic realities, arguing that requirements such as ownership of high-value properties and the presentation of senior civil servants as sureties amount to a denial of bail in practice.
Particular concern was raised over the insistence in some cases that sureties must be public servants on Grade Levels 16 or 17 and owners of properties worth hundreds of millions of naira.
The NBA pointed to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dasuki v. Director-General, State Security Service & Ors (2019) LPELR-49182 (CA), where the appellate court condemned the practice of mandating serving public officers as sureties. The court held that such requirements are inconsistent with modern legal standards and may conflict with public service regulations and anti-corruption objectives.
The association also referenced Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, which provides that while courts have discretion in granting bail, the conditions imposed must not be excessive.
It stressed that judicial discretion must be exercised reasonably, judiciously, and in accordance with constitutional guarantees.
Reaffirming its position, the NBA maintained that bail conditions should be tailored solely toward ensuring an accused person’s attendance at trial and should never be used as instruments of punishment before conviction.
The association warned that conditions that are impossible to meet effectively amount to a refusal of bail, contribute to prolonged pre-trial detention, and worsen congestion in correctional facilities across the country.
It called on courts and law enforcement agencies to align bail practices with constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and the broader objectives of Nigeria’s criminal justice system.
