The Nigerian Bar Association has expressed concern over what it described as the growing trend of excessive and impractical bail conditions imposed by courts and law enforcement agencies across the country, warning that the development is undermining the constitutional right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
In a statement titled “Bail Conditions Should Not Undermine the Essence of Bail,” the association said it had observed with increasing concern the practice of imposing stringent bail requirements by courts as well as agencies such as the Nigeria Police Force, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.
According to the NBA, the frequent insistence on sureties who are senior civil servants on specified grade levels, alongside demands for landed properties of high value, has transformed bail from a mechanism designed to guarantee attendance at trial into what it termed a “tool of pretrial detention.”
The association noted that many accused persons who are constitutionally presumed innocent and have been granted bail often remain behind bars because they are unable to meet the conditions attached to their release.
“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 NBA stated.
Reaffirming the legal purpose of bail, the association stressed that it is a constitutional safeguard intended to secure the attendance of an accused person in court while preserving liberty pending the determination of guilt or innocence.
“It is neither a punishment nor a mechanism for imposing pre-trial incarceration by indirect means,” the NBA said, adding that “the law is settled that bail conditions must be reasonable, practical, and capable of being fulfilled by the accused person.”
The association cited the Supreme Court decision in Suleman & Anor v. Commissioner of Police, Plateau State (2008), which held that the objective of bail pending trial is to grant pre-trial freedom to an accused person whose appearance can be secured through appropriate conditions, rather than creating insurmountable obstacles that make release impossible.
The NBA also criticized the continued requirement in some cases that sureties must be senior public servants, particularly those on Grade Levels 16 and 17, arguing that such conditions lack legal justification and fail to reflect prevailing economic realities.
Referencing the Court of Appeal judgment in Dasuki v. Director-General, State Security Service & Ors (2019) LPELR-49182 (CA), the association said the appellate court had unequivocally condemned the practice of mandating serving public officers as sureties.
According to the NBA, the court held that such requirements are “unknown to civilised legal systems” and observed that expecting a civil servant on Grade Level 16 to possess property worth hundreds of millions of naira is both unrealistic and potentially inconsistent with public service regulations and anti-corruption objectives.
The legal body further pointed to Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which grants courts discretion in setting bail conditions but expressly provides that such conditions must not be excessive.
“Judicial discretion, though wide, must always be exercised judiciously, reasonably, and in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees,” the statement said.
The NBA warned that bail conditions that cannot realistically be met amount in practice to a denial of bail and contribute significantly to prolonged pretrial detention and overcrowding in correctional facilities.
The association also challenged the rationale behind restricting acceptable sureties to a particular class of citizens, insisting there is no evidence that senior civil servants are inherently more reliable than other law-abiding Nigerians.
“There is no evidence that civil servants are inherently more reliable as sureties than other law-abiding citizens. Such requirements unduly narrow the pool of eligible sureties and create artificial barriers to the enjoyment of a constitutional right,” it stated.
Calling on judicial officers nationwide to remain guided by the Constitution, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and established judicial precedents, the NBA urged courts to ensure that bail conditions remain fair, reasonable, proportionate and attainable.
The association emphasized that the administration of justice is best served when the rights of accused persons are protected while ensuring their appearance in court through lawful and practical conditions.
“As guardians of the rule of law, we must collectively ensure that the constitutional right to bail remains meaningful and effective,” the NBA said. “Bail should not become a privilege reserved only for those with extraordinary means or connections. It must remain what the law intended it to be, a mechanism for securing attendance at trial while preserving the liberty and dignity of persons who have not been convicted of any offence.”
