THE LAGOS ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE LAW (ACJL) 2007: LEGISLATIVE

RASCALITY OR A LEGAL MENU FOR
ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

By

Peter Ocheme*

Introduction
Over the years and more particularly since the return to the
4th Republican democracy in Nigeria,1 the three arms of the
Lagos State Government2 have demonstrated strong capacity
to challenge the old status quo by either executive or
legislative or judicial decisions which in the main, have
provided surprises for all and sundry, not the least
Constitutional analysts. As was said of the biblical
Bethlehem in the region of Judea,3 maybe out of the little
town Lagos shall become the “legal messiah” for the Federal
and States governments to either follow or quarrel with.
Equally, as may be said of the military career in Nigeria in
relation to Kaduna State,4 so will it be said of the legal career


Associate Professor of Law, Benue State University, Makurdi, who
between December 2006 and January 2011 taught the Criminal Litigation
Course at the Kano Campus of the Nigerian Law School.
1. By 29th May, 1999, the Military handed over power to a democratically
elected President Olusegun Obasanjo, who hitherto was a Military Head of
State and involved in virtually all military coups of from 1976 to his
incarceration by his fellow commander – General Sani Abacha between
1995 and 1998.
2. Under the Nigerian Presidential democracy, each tier of Government at the
Federal, State and Local Government levels is composed of the Executive,
Legislative as well as the Judiciary arms.
3. See the Gospel of Mathew 2: 1.
4. You can neither be a Nigerian Soldier without the Nigerian Army Depot in
Zaria, nor an Officer of the Armed Forces without the Nigerian Defence
Academy in Kaduna.
132 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

in Nigeria with respect to Lagos.5 In fact, as this article is

being written, it is only the Lagos State Ministry of Justice
(not even the Federal) that can boastfully house two Senior
Advocates of Nigeria (SAN)6 on its payroll.
One of such legal surprises to be considered by this
article is the Lagos state legislation7 abrogating of the age-
long and widely used Criminal Procedure Act.8 This piece of
legislation must have been informed by various action
groups, consultations and human rights campaigners. It is
perhaps in the bid to satisfy such a variety of interests that the
law has dished out a number of controversial provisions,
forming the bedrock of this academic examination.
As will be revealed by this research, the ACJL is not
only in a number of provisions at variance with the Nigerian
Constitution, but even with other Acts of the National
Assembly and no less with judicial precedents. The ACJL
has not only taken Lagos State out of the realms of the
“Southern States of Nigeria applying the Criminal Procedure
Act (CPA)” as opposed to the “Northern States of Nigeria
applying the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC” (a somewhat
sacrosanct operational compartments for the Nigerian

5. For even with the movement of the Supreme Court and the Nigerian Law
School from Lagos to Abuja, not so far has any lawyer worth of a ranking
been able to do without Lagos and its rich legal history of commercial
transactions.
6. As at 10th February, 2011, there were Mr. Sasore (SAN), the State
Attorney-General and Mr. Pedro (SAN), the Solicitor-General.
7. The Law on Criminal Justice Administration in the High Courts and
Magistrates’ Courts of Lagos and for other Connected Purposes, Law No.
10 of 2007, Lagos State of Nigeria, Official Gazette No.21, Ikeja, dated
20th March, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “ACJL”).
8. The Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) was first enacted as an Order-in-
Council in 1916. It was later adopted variously by the Regional
Governments before and after the Nigerian Independence in 1960, and
thereafter sustained as amended by each of the Southern States including
Lagos State until 2007. By section 374 of the ACJL, the then Lagos version
of the CPA, which was the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap 18, Laws of
Lagos State, 2003 was repealed.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 133
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

criminal justice administration), but has challenged the

offices and functions of Federal and State agencies in respect
of criminal administration so long as they relate with Lagos
State.
In its characteristic style, the ACJL has subverted the
provisions of such other laws as the Companies and Allied
Matters Act9, the Police Act,10 the Evidence Act,11 etc. What
is of a more surprising revelation is that neither the National
Assembly nor those Federal agencies whose powers,
functions and duties are so expressly undermined by the
ACJL have bothered to be interested let alone intervene.
It is to be admitted however, that prior to the enactment
of this-way-forward legislation, that the operations of the
erstwhile Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) had been fraught
with numerous challenges. For instance, issues like coerced
and involuntary confessions, court congestion, delays in
trials, detention of awaiting trial suspects and accused
persons standing trial without aid of counsel, were obviously
noticeable matters that generated a lot of heat in the
operations of the (CPA).
A possible explanation for the radicalism of this
important piece of legislation (ACJL) from Lagos State is the
general lackadaisical attitude found in most of the country’s
legislatures. Many Nigerian congressmen and ministerial
officials do not have legal education and they do not employ
the services of lawyers to assist them to carry out their
legislative and administrative duties. What is often the
practice among our Legislators is that the passage of Bills
(perhaps other than Appropriation Bills), hardly undergo any
serious scrutiny and even when passed into law, they are

9. Decree No. 1 of 1990 now Cap. C20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
(LFN) 2004).
10. Cap. 359 LFN, 1990 now Cap. P19, LFN, 2004).
11. Cap. 112 LFN, 1990 (Cap. E14, LFN, 2004).
134 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

hardly read or taken seriously by the stakeholders. Otherwise,

how does one explain the mandatory clerical duty imposed
on the Commissioner of Police for Lagos State,12 whose
appointment is constitutionally a federal government
directive,13 and who must forward all duplicate case files
with respect to indictable offences to the Office of the Lagos
State Attorney General for purposes of issuing legal advice,
and which legal advice once issued is conclusive of the
matter?14 As it is now, the Lagos State Commissioner of
Police and all his subordinate officers are, by this piece of
legislation, shut out of their constitutional and statutory
capacities to determine which indictable offences they can
prosecute at their level. And they are keeping quiet!
This article, therefore, seeks to highlight such abrasive
provisions of the ACJL and other key areas that require the
attention of the other stakeholders in criminal administration
not only within Lagos but also as they may have bearings on
other jurisdictions within the one federated (though divergent
in culture and beliefs) peace loving, “indivisible and
indissoluble sovereign state to be known and called the
Federal Republic of Nigeria”.15

Provisions that Audaciously Challenge the Status Quo

Ante:
We consider below a number of provisions
emanating from the ACJL which audaciously
challenge the status quo ante of the Federal
character system of governance in Nigeria and

12. See section 74(1), ACJL.

13. See section 215(1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (CFRN) 1999 as amended, hereinafter referred to as “the
Constitution”.
14. See section 74(2), ACJL.
15. See section 2 of the Constitution.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 135
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

ipso facto put Lagos State at daggers drawn

with the rest of Nigeria.

Dilution of Police Powers and Functions:

The ACJL provides inter alia as follows:

The Police Officer or the person making the

arrest or the Police Officer in charge of a
Police Station or any Law Enforcement
Agency shall inform the person arrested of
his right to:
a. Remain silent or avoid answering
any question until after consultation
with a legal practitioner or any
other person of his own choice.
b. Consult a counsel of his choice
before making or writing any
statement or answering any
question put to him after arrest.16
(Underlining mine).
And in another provision, it goes further to state:

The Police Officer or the person making the

arrest shall inform the person arrested that
he may apply for free legal representation
from the office of the Public Defender,
Legal Aid Council or any such agency.17
(Underlining mine)

The immediate construction of the two provisions above

is that they are both mandatory duties imposed on any
person, even the private illiterate or non-legally trained

16. See section 3(2).

17. See section 3(3).
136 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

person, who makes a valid arrest or the Police Officer who

himself is distressed in making an arrest or receiving an
arrested person at the station, that they be so civilized or else
they be held to have made an unlawful arrest.
Meanwhile, the constitutional requirement in such a
situation is that “any person who is arrested or detained shall
be informed in writing within 24 hours (and in a language
that he understands) of the facts and grounds for his arrest or
detention”.18 If I am permitted to put it in a figurative way,
how can the congregational member (the ACJL) be more
catholic than the Pope (the Constitution)? Lest we forget,
there is the legal cure to such insurrection.19
Although it is believed that ignorance of the law is not an
excuse, but in this circumstance, the arrested person stands to
benefit from the ignorance of the law on the part of those
who arrested him for failing to inform you of his ACJL, (yet
not constitutional) rights to avail the services of the Public
Defender, which under the ACJL, will function in Lagos
State in the same way as intended for the nationally
established Legal Aid Council.20 How was it possible for the
purpose of an effective arrest that all these must happen even
where it is not within the purview of the Lagos State
Government to establish the office of the Legal Aid Council?

The Duty of the Police to Ensure Video Recording of

Confessional Statements:
For gallantry, the Lagos State law provides:

Where any person who is arrested with or

without a warrant volunteers to make a
confessional statement, the Police shall
ensure that the making and taking of such

18. Section 35(3) of the Constitution.

19. See section 1(3) of the Constitution.
20. Cap 205, LFN 1990 now Act Cap L9 LFN 2004.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 137
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

statement is recorded on video and the said

recording and copies thereof may be
produced at the trial provided that in the
absence of video facility, the said statement
shall be in writing in the presence of a legal
practitioner of his choice”.21

Aside from the economic costs and practicability

problems associated with this onerous service responsibility
foisted on the Police force in Lagos State, more so that the
provision is unclear as to whether or not the arrested person
has first to be brought to the Station before he confesses,
there still remain a number of other legal issues. Firstly, the
video recording and copies so made in the circumstance are
obviously intended to be used in evidence at trial. Could it be
unknown to the framers of this law that so far, our Evidence
Act,22 until amended, does not admit of such electronically
generated fact(s)? Secondly, the Lagos State House of
Assembly lacks the constitutional capacity to make rules on
evidence, since it is a subject matter within the exclusive
legislative list of the National Assembly.23
Thirdly, it is inconclusive what the law intends to do with
the presence of a legal practitioner at the writing of the
confessional statement, since his mere presence would not
alter the validity or otherwise of its voluntariness. Does the
presence of a legal practitioner at a scene of event translate to
its genuineness or truthfulness any more than the presence of
another person at the event? Is the legal practitioner to be
believed any more than the Police in a trial within trial at the
challenge of such a confessional statement?

21. See section 9(3), ACJL.

22. Cap 112, LFN, 1990 now Cap El4 LFN, 2004.
23. See item 23 in Part I of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution.
138 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

Fourthly, the provision impliedly jettisoned the Common

Law “Judges Rule”24 with its attendant tests for measuring
the civility on the part of the Police and the voluntariness on
the part of the suspect in the taking and making of
confessional statements, respectively. This practice
seemingly adopted by our Evidence Act,25 was commended
by the Federal Supreme Court in Queen v. Sapele.26 As was
earlier pointed in this article, where the provisions of a State
law are clearly inconsistent with the Constitution or Acts of
the National Assembly, such provisions, to the extent of such
inconsistencies, are null and void. This is one situation of
such inconsistencies and it is humbly submitted that the
AJCL position cannot therefore, stand.

The Duty of the Police to Report all Cases of Arrest and

Remit Files to the Nearest Magistrate or Office of the
Attorney-General
In a bold breathe, which places a Magistrate (no matter the
grade) in superior position to the Divisional Police Officer
(no matter the rank), the ACJL requires that:

Officers in charge of Police Station shall

report to the nearest Magistrate the cases of
all persons arrested without warrant within
the limits of their respective station whether
such persons have been admitted to bail or
not and the Chief Magistrate shall notify the
Chief Registrar of the High Court of such
report who shall forward the report to the

24. See R. v. Ajani (1936) 3 WACA. 3; Evbuomwan v. Police (1961) W.N.L.R.

257.
25. See sections 28 and 31, Evidence Act.
26. (1957) 2 FSC 24.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 139
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

Director of Public Prosecutions for

necessary actions.27

Again, without holding brief for who should rank higher

in the civil service scheme between the Magistrate and the
Officer in charge of the Police Station, the above statutory
provision apparently portends many administrative problems
in the command structure of criminal justice dispensation in
Lagos State. By law and by administrative structure, the
Police though physically carrying out civil duties in Lagos
State do not come under the command and administration of
the Lagos State government.
In a clear demonstration of such show of power by the
Lagos State organs over and above the Police which is a
Federal Force and of a national Command structure,28 the
ACJL directs:

The Commissioner of Police shall remit to

the Office of the Attorney-General a record
of all arrests made with or without a Warrant
in relation to State Offences within one
week of the arrest.29

The above was followed by yet another legislative

directive that the Commissioner of Police:

shall forward all duplicate case files with

respect to indictable offences to the Office
of the Attorney-General for the purpose of
issuance of legal advice.30

27. See section 20(1), ACJL.

28. See section 214 of the Constitution.
29. See section 10(3) of the ACJL.
30. See section 74(1) of the ACJL.
140 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

Aside from seemingly subjugating the State

Commissioner of Police to a supposed superior wisdom of
the Attorney General of Lagos State on issues of criminal
justice administration, it will appear that the above ACJL
provisions rub away the powers, functions and command
structure of the Police force as prescribed under the
Constitution31 and the Police Act.32
While not doubting the constitutional powers of the State
Attorney-General,33 it is submitted humbly that such powers
do not extend to pre-trial administrative and command
directives or decisions of the Police Force in respect of
suspects held in their custody within the constitutional limits.
In like manner, it does not lie within the capacity of the
said Attorney General to regulate the administrative activities
of Federal security agencies operating in Lagos, such as the
National Drug Law and Enforcement Agency, the State
Security Services, the Federal Road Safety Commission, etc.,
until they institute a criminal action in court, at which time
and stage the Attorney General may interfere, depending on
which law is offended.
Additionally, it may be of interest to point out at this
juncture that the appointment and tenure of the
Commissioner of Police for a State34 including Lagos, is
beyond either the pleasure or dislike of the State Executive
Council, or its legislative arm. In fact, as it is constitutionally,
such appointments and tenure are not even held at the
instance of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP). Thus, the
Commissioner of Police for the State does not take security
Orders from the State Governor. It is in this context that any

31. See section 214 (2)(a),(b) and (c), read alongside section 318 of the
Constitution.
32. Cap P19 LFN., 2004.
33. As contained under section 211 of the Constitution.
34. See section 215(1) (b) of the Constitution.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 141
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

member of the Police Force can boldly knock at the doors of

any one person, group or party, not the least the State
Governor and the Attorney General inclusive upon a
reasonable suspicion of any crime, even in the remotest
forms of relationship i.e. family. Unless and until the
Constitution is amended, the entire operational efficiency of
the Police Force is tied the Presidency and not even the
National Assembly can ventilate this arrangement.
It is instructive to note that unlike the constitutional
provisions relating to the appointments of the Chief of
Defence Staff and other Service Chiefs being subject to the
confirmation of the National Assembly,35 the IGP is
appointed only by the President after seeking the advice of
the Police Council,36 and a State Police Commissioner is
appointed not even by the President or the IGP or the Police
Council but by the Police Service Commission.37 Also on this
note, even the constitutional clauses on restriction of legal
proceedings38 do not preclude the Police from investigating
such Officers.
Perhaps in its bid to nullify the importance of the Police
in criminal justice administration in Lagos State, and without
regard to statutory39 and judicial precedents,40 the ACJL, in
the following terms, shuts the Police out of their prosecution
powers in the Lagos High Courts:
Trials shall be held … in the High Court:

(i) on information, filed by a Law Officer or private

prosecutor or;

35. See section 218(2) of the Constitution.

36. See section 216(2) of the Constitution.
37. See section 215(1)(b) of the Constitution.
38. See section 308 of the Constitution.
39. See section 23 of the Police Act.
40. See Olusemo v. State, Osahon v. FRN. Etc.
142 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

(ii) on information exhibited by the Attorney General of

the State under the provisions of section 69; or
(iii) summarily, in accordance with the provisions of
sections 232 to 252”.41

And for such summary trials, (which perhaps the Police

may handle since the law did not expressly exclude them),
the issues at trial should only be in respect of:

(i) perjury and contempt;

(ii) offences which by any law of the State House of
Assembly are triable summarily; or
(iii) trials for simple offences or misdemeanor in the
Magistrates’ Courts or tribunals.”42

And in another confirmatory provision, the ACJL states

that “an information shall be signed by a Law Officer.43” The
implied interpretation this is that since a criminal trial can be
only be commenced at the High Court by an Information,
which can only be signed by a Law Officer, the Policeman,
even if learned in Law, not being a Law Officer is thus
excluded from prosecuting at the Lagos High Court.
Apparently conceding to the superiority of wisdom by
the Attorney-General of the State to that of the Chief Judge,
the Lagos Law also surreptitiously forbade the rule requiring
Consent of the trial Judge to a Charge by way of
“Information” filed in preparation to a criminal trial at the
High Court.44 By virtue of this new dispensation,45 and
without regard to any objection that may be raised to the
sufficiency of evidence disclosed in the Proof of Evidence

41. See section 230 of the ACJL.

42. See section 232 of the ACJL.
43. See section 257 of the ACJL.
44. See Ohwovoriole v. FRN (2003) FWLR (Pt.141)2019
45. See section 256 of the ACJL
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 143
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

attached to the Information, the extant Lagos Prosecutor must

be heard in his case as contained in the charge sheet
(Information).46 The ACJL by this provision has shut out the
right of the defence to apply to quash the Information where
the proof of evidence does not constitute the offence47 or
where the Information itself is defective.48
Again, it is inconceivable how the Lagos State ACJL
could run its style of criminal justice administration in
contradictions with both the Federal Law49 and judicial
precedents of the appellate Courts50 and yet pretend to be part
of the common Nigerian judicial heritage. The practical
solution which this Article advocates in respect of the above
inconsistencies is that of administrative collaboration and
complimentary exchanges between the Police and the Lagos
State officers charged with the responsibilities of
administering criminal justice.

Provisions Aimed at Serving Human Rights Menu:

In a number of sections, the ACJL also provided some
platforms to serve the interests of human rights in respect of
access to justice or equality of genders before the law. A few
of such notable instances are discussed below.

Abolition of Arrest in Lieu

46. See section 264(2) of the ACJL.

47. As in Egbe v. The State (1980)1 NCR 341; Ikomi v. The State (1986) 5 SC
313.
48. As in Okoli v. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.247) 381; Abacha v. The State
(2002) FWLR (Pt.118) 1224.
49. Section 23 of the Police Act.
50. George Osahon & 6 Ors v. FRN (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361 which
upheld the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal in Olusemo v. COP
(1998) 11 NWLR (Pt.375) 517.
144 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

The Law provides that “no person shall be arrested in lieu of

any other person.”51 This may at the surface level appear
plausibly humane and a respect for the dignity of all citizens
before the law. Yet, in practical reality, it presents a very
difficult roadblock for the Police to the effective
investigation of criminal activities in Nigeria, given the
tendency by many, if not all, families to protect and screen
members who are offenders in their folds. By this provision,
the house wife who knowingly ate of the husband’s loot
cannot be arrested during investigation by the Police and
search for her absconding husband. The wisdom for the
effective Investigating Police Officer is to invite such a wife
to the Station who must not neglect to aid in arresting her
suspected husband/offender.52

The Office of the Public Defender

The ACJL predicts the provision of State-run free legal
services to a suspect or an accused person in the
nomenclature of “Office of the Public Defender” (OPD),
when it states that:

A form indicating a desire to be represented

by counsel of his choice or by the Office of
the Public Defender, Legal Aid Council or
any other organization providing legal aid
shall be attached to each legal advice for
purposes of endorsement b the person in
respect of whom legal advice is preferred.53

51. See section 4 of the ACJL.

52. See section 201 of the Criminal Code.
53. See section 74(6), ACJL.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 145
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

The ACJL, in this context gives legislative teeth to an

earlier established Office,54 whose definition, scope and
functions, seemingly seek to provide alternative services to
those of the Legal Aid Council. Whereas the Legal Aid
Council is a federal agency, whose operations are not limited
but inclusive of Lagos jurisdictions, yet the ACJL, through
the OPD appear to override the Council in its efficacy in
Lagos, even when the State cannot make such subsidiary
legislation over a federal agency.
In a deeper reflection, however, the legal outfits55
clothing the OPD appear to be more embracing than those of
the Legal Aid Council. For example, it declared intention to
have responsibility for:

a) the provision of legal aid services and advice;

b) to receive complaints from individuals or by referrals
from government and private institutions;
c) investigate complaints and referrals made to it and to
prepare necessary legal documents;
d) negotiate settlements or give necessary legal advice in
alternative dispute resolutions, etc.56

It has been contended elsewhere that the operations of

the OPD have enabled the provisions of free legal services in
respect of criminal and civil matters to indigent residents of
Lagos State irrespective of tribe, race or religion.57

54. The Lagos State Office of the Public Defender Law, 2000 (created 7 years
earlier than the ACJL but kept in wait for the enabling environment now
made operational by the ACJL).
55. Sections 2, 12 and 13 of the OPD Law.
56. Ibid.
57. See generally, B. Owasanoye & A. Atsenuwa (Eds.): Public Defence in a
Developing Country: Looking Behind and Beyond (Lagos: Lagos OPD &
NIALS, 2000).
146 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

Facilitating Bail Processes

The ACJL has manifestly simplified bail processes in a
number of ways, some of which are:

a) That a Judge may, if he thinks fit, admit any person

charged before a Magistrate Court to bail although the
Court before whom the Charge is made has not
thought it fit to do so.58
b) That no person shall be denied or prevented or
restricted from entering into any recognizance or
standing as surety or providing any security on the
ground that the person is a woman.59
c) The Chief Judge may, by regulation, register and
license individuals or corporate bodies or persons to
act as Bondsperson within the jurisdiction of the Court
in which they are registered.60

By the above innovations, the ACJL portends to ease

access to justice by persons who may be lawfully restrained
and incapacitated by insufficient surety/bond facilities. In this
way, the restrained person could enter into contractual
arrangements with the corporate bondsperson for his release
and subsequent payment in cash or kind as may be agreed.

The Introduction of the Plea Bargain and Sentence

Agreements
In yet another controversial provision61, which may possibly
have been dictated by considerations in the guise of human
rights, the ACJL overtook all laws on the highways it
constructed for both the prosecutor and offender to,
figuratively speaking, negotiate their cuts from the loot while

58. See section 119, ACJL.

59. See section 118(3), ACJL.
60. Section 138, ACJL.
61. Section 75 of the ACJL.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 147
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

not minding the victim. A peep into one of such highways

reveals that:
Notwithstanding anything in this Law or in
any other law, the Attorney-General of the
State shall have power to consider and
accept a plea bargain from a person charged
with any offence where the Attorney-
General is of the view that the acceptance of
such plea bargain is in the public interest,
the interest of justice and the need to prevent
abuse of legal process”.62 (Underlining
mine)

There is yet another complimentary approach by the

ACJL63 to enable the Prosecutor, who is not the Attorney-
General in this case, to negotiate a plea and arrange a
sentence agreement with the defendant. This was made
possible by the following procedure:

The prosecutor and a defendant or his legal

practitioner may before the plea to the
charge, enter into an agreement in respect
of:
(a) A plea of guilty by the
defendant to the offence charged
or a lesser offence of which he
may be convicted on the charge;
and
(b) An appropriate sentence to be
imposed by the Court if the
defendant is convicted of the

62. Ibid.
63. Section 76 of the ACJL.
148 NIALS Journal on Criminal Law and Justice Vol. 1 2011

offence to which he intends to

plead guilty”.64

In this instance, unlike the case of the Attorney-General

above quoted, the prosecutor may, if he finds it reasonably
feasible, afford the complainant or his representative the
opportunity to make representations to the prosecutor
regarding the contents of the agreement or the inclusion of a
compensation or restitution order in the agreement.65 The
judicial procedure to be followed, after the agreement has
been made, are sequentially laid out by the Law,66 and do not
deserve any further comment.
The merits and demerits of the introduction of plea
bargain and sentencing agreements in the Lagos criminal
justice administration have been well treated in other
academic works,67 and it is the considered opinion of this
writer that they are sufficiently addressed.

Conclusion
In this article, which did not undertake a seriatim review
exercise, the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL)
of Lagos State was examined with the finding that there exist
a number of contradictory provisions when compared and
read alongside other established laws, notably the
Constitution, the Police Act, and the decisions of the
appellate courts as regards criminal litigation in Nigeria. The
Lagos law has thus pitched itself for such an academic
critique and possibly future legislative or judicial reviews
when the conflicts pointed out begin to bear fruits in the
cases that would proceed to appeals.

64. Ibid., sub-section (1).

65. Ibid., sub-section( 3).
66. Ibid., sub-sections (4) to (10).
67. See J.A. Agaba: “Plea Bargaining in the Administration of Criminal
Justice” Zaria Bar Journal (ZABAJO) Vol.1, No. 2, Zaria, Nigeria 2010.
The Lagos Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2007: 149
Legislative Rascality or a Legal Menu for Access to Justice?

The article has also contributed to knowledge by the

comparative exercise of the new dispensations brought about
by the ACJL vis-à-vis contemporary legal instruments which
are still in vogue for the dispensation of criminal justice both
in Lagos and elsewhere, more particularly the Evidence Act.
The article succeeded in projecting the remains of the
powers and functions (if any) of the Nigerian Police Force in
the administration of criminal justice within Lagos State,
given the abrasive provisions of the ACJL in respect of their
handling pre-trial issues and prosecution of offenders in the
Lagos Courts.
Finally, although not conceding legal supremacy to
Lagos State over any other within the Federation, this article
acknowledges (and hopes objectively too) that by the
emergency of the ACJL, Lagos has brazen yet another
horizon, by modernizing its criminal justice administrative
systems to meet international best practices. This is a posture
that bacons on sister States and the National Assemblies to
carry out legislative reviews/revisions that will engender
conformity with standards as dictated by international
instruments, most of which Nigeria has ratified.