Unrealistic bail conditions

On June 4, 2026, President of Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN raised alarm on recurring stringent bail conditions in Nigeria such that it is undermining the essence of bail. Osigwe said in a statement that the NBA has “observed with growing concern a disturbing trend in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria, […]

On June 4, 2026, President of Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN raised alarm on recurring stringent bail conditions in Nigeria such that it is undermining the essence of bail. Osigwe said in a statement that the NBA has “observed with growing concern a disturbing trend in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria, where courts and law enforcement agencies, including the Nigeria Police Force, EFCC, ICPC, and other security agencies, increasingly impose bail conditions that are excessive, impractical, and difficult to satisfy…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.”

The “troubling development,” Osigwe noted, impairs the constitutional right to personal liberty, weakens the presumption of innocence, and defeats the very essence and purpose of bail within our criminal justice system, effectively converting the grant of bail into a denial of bail.

On June 8, former Minister of Aviation, Osita Chidoka, added his voice against “excessive and unrealistic” bail conditions, arguing that granting bail that are virtually impossible to satisfy gradually weakens the principles of justice. Calling for judicial restraint, Chidoka noted that the “law could not have intended or envisaged the weaponisation of wealth over character.”

Daily Trust commends Osigwe and Chidoka for highlighting this all important issue and calls for a national emergency in halting the burdensome requirements as it comes out as obnoxious, excessive, and prohibitive. In fact, it is becoming like a deliberate ploy to keep citizens, especially political enemies, the poor and vulnerable in prolonged detention.

We agree with the NBA that bail is a constitutional safeguard designed to secure the attendance of an accused person at trial while preserving his or her liberty pending the determination of guilt or innocence. Therefore, on no account should it be a disguised punishment or 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.

In any case, stringent bail conditions have become major contributors to prison congestion. Also, the difficulty of satisfying tough conditions such as producing senior civil servants as sureties or providing expensive landed property in elite districts like Maitama or Asokoro in Abuja has given rise to a predatory “bail industry” where professional bondsmen and corrupt officials exploit desperate families, effectively transforming bail into a form of institutionalised extortion or localised ransom.

This is more so as some judges require the procurement of such sureties who must be serving senior civil servants on Grade Levels 16 or 17 with three years tax clearance, and who must own landed properties worth at least N500 million. Another was required to provide a bank guarantee of N15 billion. In some circumstances, sureties are required to surrender their passports, thus hindering their movements or lawful pursuits or to procure a letter of identification from a traditional ruler etc.

Oftentimes, the professional bail bondsmen, who provide sureties charge exorbitant fees, forcing families and individuals to, most of the time, liquidate assets, borrow from loan sharks, or exhaust their savings to secure bail. Such punitive conditions by both courts and bondsmen end up disrupting lives, families and livelihood.

Specifically, Daily Trust appeals to the conscience of judges that they adhere strictly to ACJA 2015 especially Section 158(3) which states that “Conditions of bail imposed by a court under this section shall not be excessive;” Section 160(1) provision that bail can be granted with or without sureties, or on recognizance/bond alone, without mandatory cash/property; Section 161(1) that offences not punishable with death, bail is granted as a right, not discretion and Section 163 which states that court must consider factors like nature of offence, strength of evidence, likelihood of defendant attending trial, and defendant’s means before setting conditions. These have also been emphasized by the Court of Appeal.

Most importantly, we remind the National Judicial Council (NJC) that under Section 153(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it has explicit powers under Paragraph 21 of Part I of the Third Schedule to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers through recommending their removal of any erring judge from office. Moreover, NJC should exercise its powers as contained in the National Judicial Policy by issuing clear guidelines and policy directives on judicial accountability, ethical conduct, and proper exercise of discretion in bail matters. There must be a limit to “judicial rascality.”

We, therefore, restate that bail conditions must be tailored solely to ensure attendance at trial and not a recourse to restricting sureties only to an elite class of top civil servants and property or land owners. No attempt should be made to impose terms that render bail illusory or nugatory. The courts must not prize the freedom of any citizen out of reach. You cannot give with the right hand only to take the same away with the left hand.