11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Caning is a punishment in the Northern Region Penal Code ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 19494]

"Caning is also a punishment under common law in the Northern Region Penal Code and had not been challenged in the courts as a violation of the statutory law. In some cases convicted persons are allowed to choose to pay a fine or go to jail instead of being caned. These sentences were usually carried out immediately, while Shari'a allows defendants 30 days to appeal sentences involving mutilation or death. In practice appeals often took much longer than 30 days."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Description of the court system ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 19694]

"The regular court system is composed of federal and state trial courts, state appeals courts, the federal court of appeal, and the Supreme Court. There are Shari'a and customary (traditional) courts of appeal in states that use Shari'a for civil or criminal law, including a customary court in the FCT. Courts of first instance include magistrate or district courts, customary or traditional courts, Shari'a courts, and for some specified cases, the state high courts. The constitution also provides that the government establish a Federal Shari'a Court of Appeal and Final Court of Appeal, but these courts had not been established by year's end."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

There were delays of up to several years in bringing suspects to trial ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 19696]

"According to the constitution, persons charged with offenses have the right to an expeditious trial. Criminal justice procedures call for trial within three months of arraignment for most categories of crimes; however, there were considerable delays, often stretching to several years, in bringing suspects to trial (see section 1.d.). The law did not provide for juries to be used in trials. Most detainees were poor and could not afford to pay the informal costs associated with moving their trials forward, and as a result they remained in prison. Wealthier defendants employed numerous delay tactics and in many cases used bribes to persuade judges to grant numerous continuances. Such practices clogged the court calendar and prevented trials from starting or progressing."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

In Sharia courts all accused persons have the right to appeal; indigent persons are more likely to have their sentences carried out immediately ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 19699]

"In both common law and Shari'a courts, indigent persons without legal representation were more likely to have their sentences carried out immediately upon being sentenced, although all accused persons have the right to appeal. The federal government instituted a panel of legal scholars in 2003 to draft a uniform Shari'a criminal statute to replace divergent Shari'a statutes adopted by various northern states; however, the panel did not produce its report during the year, and states continued to apply their individual codes."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Althought an accused person is entitled to a counsel of his choice, trials can also go go forward without counsel; but trials on offenses with death penalty require a counsel ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23158]

"Trials in the regular court system were public and generally respected constitutionally protected individual rights in criminal cases, including a presumption of innocence, and the right to be present, to confront witnesses, to present evidence, and to be represented by legal counsel. Although an accused person is entitled to counsel of his choice, there is no law preventing a trial from going forward without counsel, except for certain offenses such as homicide or other offenses for which the penalty is death. The Legal Aid Act provides for the appointment of counsel in such cases, and stipulates that a trial does not go forward without counsel."

Document(s): Open document

31.01.2008 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Judiciary is becoming increasingly independent, but especially the criminal justice system is flawed (acceptance of confessions extracted under torture; spells of extended pretrial detention) ("World Report 2008") [ID 22217]

"Nigeria’s judiciary has won widespread respect for its increasing independence,
ruling against the government in numerous politically-charged cases related to the
elections. But all too often the federal government has impeded rather than
supported those efforts. The judiciary itself is flawed, especially the criminal justice
system: magistrates and judges routinely accept confessions extracted under torture
and allow spells of extended pretrial detention that may last for months or even
years."

Document(s): Open document

06.2007 - Source: Freedom House

Judiciary is politically influenced and hampered by corruption and inefficiency ("Freedom in the World 2007") [ID 20567]

"The judiciary is subject to political influence and is hampered by corruption and inefficiency. Defendants do not always have legal representation and are often ill-informed about procedures and their rights. Lengthy pretrial detention remains a problem. In the 12 northern states where Sharia is in effect, human rights groups say Islamic courts fail to respect due process rights, which leads to harsh and discriminatory sentences."

Document(s): Open document

12.03.2007 - Source: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Nigerian law enforcement is under-resourced; results are: corruption, impunity for torture, criminal justice system which relies heavily on confessions ("Special Rapporteur on Torture Concludes Visit to Nigeria [HR/07/35]") [ID 20792]

"Nigerian law enforcement is seriously under-resourced and at the same time confronted with a high rate of violent crime. As a result, adequate training is lacking, corruption is endemic, and the cadres, emboldened by a culture of impunity for torture, are prone to heavy-handed tactics in a criminal justice system which relies heavily on confessions for successful prosecutions of criminals. [...] There is no singly entry point for reformers of the dismally inadequate Nigerian criminal justice system. Virtually every component part of the system functions badly. The result is a vicious circle in which each group contributing to the problem [police officers, politicians, and the judiciary] is content to blame the other."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Althought an accused person is entitled to a counsel of his choice, trials can also go forward without counsel ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19697]

"Trials in the regular court system were public and generally respected constitutionally protected individual rights in criminal cases, including a presumption of innocence, and the right to be present, to confront witnesses, to present evidence, and to be represented by legal counsel. Although an accused person is entitled to counsel of his choice, there is no law preventing a trial from going forward without counsel, except for certain offenses such as homicide or other offenses for which the penalty is death. The legal aid act provides for the appointment of counsel in such cases, and a trial does not go forward without counsel. However, there was a widespread perception that judges were easily bribed or "settled," and that litigants could not rely on the courts to render impartial judgments. Many courts were understaffed, and personnel were paid poorly. Judges frequently failed to appear for trials, often because they were pursuing other source of income, and sometimes because of threats against them. In addition court officials often lacked the proper equipment, training, and motivation to perform their duties, with lack of motivation primarily due to inadequate compensation."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Accused persons are entitled to a counsel of their choice; in some cases proceedings were carried on without counsels ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19698]

"Trials in the regular court system were public and generally respected constitutionally protected individual rights in criminal cases, including a presumption of innocence, and the right to be present, to confront witnesses, to present evidence, and to be represented by legal counsel. Although an accused person is entitled to counsel of his choice, there is no law preventing a trial from going forward without counsel, except for certain offenses such as homicide or other offenses for which the penalty is death. The legal aid act provides for the appointment of counsel in such cases, and a trial does not go forward without counsel. However, there was a widespread perception that judges were easily bribed or "settled," and that litigants could not rely on the courts to render impartial judgments. Many courts were understaffed, and personnel were paid poorly. Judges frequently failed to appear for trials, often because they were pursuing other source of income, and sometimes because of threats against them. In addition court officials often lacked the proper equipment, training, and motivation to perform their duties, with lack of motivation primarily due to inadequate compensation."

Document(s): Open document

09.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Problems of the judiciary: Corruption, inefficiency, lacking legal representation and lengthy pretrial detention ("Freedom in the World 2006") [ID 18263]

"The judiciary is subject to political influence and is hampered by corruption and inefficiency. Defendants do not always have legal representation and are often ill-informed about procedures and their rights. Lengthy pretrial detention remains a problem."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Legislatures and judiciaries remain largely beholden to the executives ("Countries at the Crossroads 2006") [ID 18300]

"The legislatures and judiciaries at the federal and state levels remain largely beholden to the executives, although important pockets of independence have grown. The National Assembly mounted an impeachment effort in 2004 that fizzled after several months, and both the National Assembly and state assemblies contain a number of members truly dedicated to reform who have launched investigations into a number of allegedly corrupt practices. The Supreme Court for its part has shown a dogged determination to protect its independence and to defend the rule of law in Nigeria."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Judiciary vulnerable through bribery and political influence; many judges lost their independence ("Countries at the Crossroads 2006") [ID 18420]

"Nigeria's judiciary continues to be vulnerable to compromise through bribery and political influence. Starved of funds and intimidated by the executive for decades, many judges have lost their independence. The national body charged with administering to the judiciary, the National Judicial Council (NJC), has made some efforts to crack down on these practices, and the National Bar Association continues to be an important critic of and advocate for judicial development. The appointment and promotion processes in particular have seen some improvement through NJC action, and several judges have been dismissed for impropriety. Notably, the NJC suspended the two judges who gave initial legal backing to the Anambra coup (see above), in which a political godfather paid an assistant inspector general of the police to arrest the Anambra governor in an effort to force him to resign."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Supreme Court overburdened with appeals cases ("Countries at the Crossroads 2006") [ID 18421]

"The Supreme Court remains the most trusted judicial body in the federation, after several landmark rulings in the early part of the decade. Because of this trust, however, it has been overburdened with a crush of appeals cases. Thus, the court ruled on the suit brought by the losing candidate for the 2003 presidential election only in July 2005, although part of this delay was attributed to the election tribunals themselves. Supreme Court analysts have also been waiting to see if the four new justices appointed to the court in mid-2005 by President Obasanjo will continue in the path-breaking role of their predecessors."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Only in a small percentage of cases legal representation is offered ("Countries at the Crossroads 2006") [ID 18422]

"Under Nigerian law, citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty, although some Nigerian interpretations of the Sharia criminal code place differential burdens of proof on men and women in certain circumstances. Once an accused person has entered the system, he or she is rarely afforded legal representation. A number of human rights organizations across the country try to offer legal assistance, but they are capable of reaching only a small percentage of the total number of cases in the country. Moreover, persons can remain in detention for more than a decade before coming to trial (see "Civil Liberties")."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Basic problems of the judicial system ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46036],  [ID 17082]

"Although the law provides for an independent judiciary, the judicial branch remained susceptible to executive and legislative branch pressure. Political leaders influenced the judiciary, particularly at the state and local levels. Understaffing, underfunding, inefficiency, and corruption continued to prevent the judiciary from functioning adequately. Citizens encountered long delays and frequent requests from judicial officials for small bribes to expedite cases. The Ministry of Justice implemented strict requirements for levels of education and length of service for judges at the federal and state level; however, there were no requirements or monitoring body for judges at the local level, leading to corruption and miscarriages of justice. The regular court system is composed of federal and state trial courts, state appeals courts, the federal court of appeal, and the Federal Supreme Court. There are Shari'a and customary (traditional) courts of appeal in states that use those bases for civil or criminal law, including in the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja). Courts of first instance include magistrate or district courts, customary or traditional courts, Shari'a courts, and for some specified cases, the state high courts. The law also provides that the government establish a Federal Shari'a Court of Appeal and Final Court of Appeal, but these courts had not been established by year's end. The nature of the case usually determined which court had jurisdiction. In principle, customary or Shari'a courts had jurisdiction only if both plaintiff and defendant agreed on this; however, fear of legal costs, delays, distance to alternative venues, community pressure, and individual preference caused many litigants to choose the customary and Shari'a courts over other venues. In some states, cases involving only Muslims must be heard by a Shari'a court. Other states with Shari'a law permitted Muslims to choose common law courts for criminal cases, but societal pressure forced most Muslims to use the Shari'a court system."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Structure of the judicial system ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29466],  [ID 14875]

"The regular court system is composed of federal and state trial courts, state appeals courts, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Federal Supreme Court. There are Shari'a (Islamic) and customary (traditional) courts of appeal in states that use those bases for civil or criminal law, including in the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja). Courts of the first instance include magistrate or district courts, customary or traditional courts, Shari'a courts, and for some specified cases, the state high courts. The Constitution also provides that the Government establish a Federal Shari'a Court of Appeal and Final Court of Appeal; however, the Government had not yet established such courts by year's end.

The nature of a case usually determined which court had jurisdiction. In principle, customary and Shari'a courts had jurisdiction only if both plaintiff and defendant agreed; however, in practice, fear of legal costs, delays, distance to alternative venues, community pressure, and individual preference caused many litigants to choose the customary and Shari'a courts over other venues. In some states, cases involving only Muslims must be heard by a Shari'a court.

Other states with Shari'a law permitted Muslims to choose common law courts for criminal cases; however, societal pressure forced most Muslims to use the Shari'a court system."

Document(s): Open document

08.2004 - Source: Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation

General information on the judicial system ("Nigeria - Länderbericht") [#28135],  [ID 14876]

"Am 29. Mai 1999 wurde mit dem Übergang zur Zivilregierung die Verfassung von 1979 mit leichten Modifikationen wieder eingeführt. Als Rechtsquellen gelten: britisches Common Law, positives Recht, islamisches Recht und tribales Gewohnheitsrecht (ACCORD 2002, S. 19). Es liegen zwei weitere Strafgesetzbücher vor: für den Norden der Penal Code und für den Süden der Criminal Code. Diese sind auf die in ihrem Geltungsbereich wohnhaften Personen anwendbar. In 12 Gliedstaaten wurden seit 1999 Scharia Strafgesetzbücher eingeführt (siehe unten Liste der Gliedstaaten, Kapitel 3.5.3); diese sind vorwiegend, aber nicht ausschließlich auf Muslime anwendbar (AI 2004, Nigeria – Women 2.1).

Seit der Wahl von Präsident Olusegun Obasanjo (seit 1999) ist eine zunehmende Unabhängigkeit des Supreme Court sowie der Berufungsgerichte feststellbar (USDOS 2004).

Auf der untersten Ebene sind die Customary oder Traditional Courts sowie die Sharia Courts und zusätzlich die Magistrate oder District Courts angesiedelt. Ein Sharia Court kann angerufen werden, wenn beide Streitparteien muslimischen Glaubens sind. Customary und Sharia Courts werden zumeist aus Kosten- und Zeitgründen den anderen Gerichten vorgezogen. Auf Gliedstaatenebene gibt es jeweils einen High Court, bei Bedarf einen Sharia Court of Appeal und einen Customary Court of Appeal (SFH 2002, S. 12-13). Auf nationaler Ebene schließlich sind ein Supreme Court, ein Court of Appeal sowie ein Federal High Court eingerichtet (SFH 2002, S 12)."

Document(s): Open document