Hanif...Wali, Esq.

Legal Practitioner.
Public defender and access to justice advocate.
Writer.
Managing Partner, I. U WALI LAW FIRM
God Almighty Allah dependant.

[Nigerian Bar Association @NigBarAssoc]

BAIL CONDITIONS SHOULD NOT UNDERMINE THE ESSENCE OF BAIL

In recent times, we have 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 frequent insistence on sureties who are senior civil servants of specified grade levels, coupled with demands for landed properties of extraordinary value, has in many cases transformed bail from a mechanism for securing attendance at trial into a tool of pretrial detention. 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. This troubling development undermines 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.

We consider it necessary to reiterate 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. It is neither a punishment nor a 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.

The Supreme Court, in Suleman & Anor v. Commissioner of Police, Plateau State (2008), emphasized that the object of bail pending trial is to grant pre-trial freedom to an accused person whose appearance in court can be secured through appropriate conditions. Bail is not intended to create insurmountable obstacles that make release impossible.

We are particularly concerned by the increasing tendency to impose conditions that are disconnected from prevailing economic realities and often impossible to satisfy. Conditions requiring sureties who are serving civil servants on specific salary grades, ownership of landed properties of extraordinary value, or other burdensome requirements effectively convert the grant of bail into a denial of bail.

Of particular concern is the continued insistence in some cases on sureties who must be senior civil servants, often on Grade Levels 16 or 17, and who must own properties worth hundreds of millions of naira. Such conditions have been strongly criticised by the appellate courts.

In Dasuki v. Director-General, State Security Service & Ors (2019) LPELR-49182 (CA), the Court of Appeal unequivocally condemned the practice of involving serving public officers as a mandatory category of sureties. The Court observed that such requirements are unknown to civilised legal systems and run contrary to public service regulations. The Court further noted that expecting a public servant on Grade Level 16 to own property worth N100 million would not only be unrealistic but could also conflict with public service rules and anti-corruption objectives.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, is equally clear on this issue. Section 165(1) provides that while the grant and conditions of bail are within the discretion of the court, such conditions must not be excessive. Judicial discretion, though wide, must always be exercised judiciously, reasonably, and in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees.

We therefore restate that bail conditions must be tailored solely to ensure attendance at trial. They must never serve as instruments of punishment prior to conviction. Conditions that cannot be met amount in substance to a refusal of bail and contribute directly to pre-trial detention and congestion in correctional facilities.

1/2

[BSAT Properties @BSAT_Properties]

HE LEFT HOME TO KICK A BALL AT 14. THEY FOUND HIM IN PRISON 18 YEARS LATER.

Nigeria, someone explain this.

2007. A 14-year-old boy named Gospel Uabari Kinanee stepped out to play football with friends. Normal day. Normal child. Normal game.

He never came back.

His family turned everywhere upside down. Hospitals. Police stations. Churches. Mortuaries. Every rumour, they chased it. Weeks became months. Months became years. Still nothing.

The pain broke them completely. His parents sold everything they owned searching for their son. They dïêd without ever finding out what happened to him.

Everyone eventually accepted the worst.

Then, eighteen years later — not one, not five, not ten — EIGHTEEN YEARS — his elder brother got a phone call.

"We found your brother."

Found him where?

In a correctional facility in Rivers State.

The boy who vanished at 14 had been behind bars the entire time. When family members asked for records, there were reportedly no clear answers. No family visits. No one looking for him. No voice. No hope. Just years disappearing silently, one after another.

But the most devastating part isn't even the prison.

It's what eighteen years inside did to him.

He now struggles to recognise his own family. He cannot properly explain what happened to him or where his life went.

Eighteen years. Gone. Just like that.

If this story is true, every Nigerian should be asking the same questions right now.

How does a child vanish inside a system meant to protect him? How many others are sitting somewhere at this moment, waiting for someone to remember they exist?

Today it is Gospel. Tomorrow it is someone's brother. Someone's son. Someone's father.

This is not just one man's story. This is about justice. About accountability. About a system that is supposed to protect people — not quietly swallow them whole.

What is your reaction to this? Drop it below.

[Abu bakar @abbkar_ai]

This story is heartbreaking.

This man disappeared in 2007 when he was only 14 years old after going out to play with his friends, as he usually did.

For weeks and months, his family searched for him everywhere. They visited hospitals, police stations, and even morgues, but they could not find a single clue about his whereabouts.

Eventually, after spending a great deal of money on the search and even selling their land and other property, his parents lost hope and concluded that their son had died. Tragically, both parents later passed away due to the stress and grief caused by his disappearance.

Years went by without any news of him.

Then, in 2025 almost 18 years after he vanished his brother received a call informing him that his missing sibling had been found in a correctional facility in Rivers State.

What was shocking was that he had reportedly been detained there for all those 18 years without any clear explanation. When inquiries were made about why he was imprisoned, it was discovered that there was no court case against him, no charge sheet, and no record of any crime he had been accused of committing.

Even more disturbing, he had lost his mental stability. He could no longer recognize his brother, could not remember how he ended up in prison, and showed clear signs of mental illness.

And one cannot help but wonder: how many other people are still languishing in prisons, suffering similar injustice, with no one aware of what they are going through?🥲

[Hanif...Wali, Esq. @iwHaNeeF]

@Chinaluemmanuel Evening counsel, so during cross examination, the witness kept answering relevant questions with "I'm not aware", "I don't know". Some of those facts were also stated in his pleadings. What do you think of the legal weight/consequences of these statements.@NWLRonline

[Hanif...Wali, Esq. @iwHaNeeF]

@Abimbolakinyemi Reason why the default style is to reproduce the statement of claim as the witness statement on oath.

[Hanif...Wali, Esq. @iwHaNeeF]

@Chinaluemmanuel Thank you counsel🙏

[Hanif...Wali, Esq. @iwHaNeeF]

@Chinaluemmanuel I have cross examination tomorrow. Though it's a civil case, but I have learnt just like you said, to focus your cross examination on the ingredients of the claim or charges.

[Chinalu Okorie @Chinaluemmanuel]

Let me share this practice tip with us.

As a Criminal Defence Lawyer, when cross-examining a witness, always focus on the ingredients of the offence.

All offences captured in our laws have ingredients. These ingredients could be easily gleaned from the laws or from case books (Law Reports). In most cases, these ingredients are conjunctive and not disjunctive. That means, where one is not proved, the Defendant will be discharged and acquitted.

Understanding the ingredients will help your cross-examination questions. It protects you from shooting amiss and ensures you are within the relevant range that will help you destroy the case of the prosecution.

When you understand this, it activates your mind to capture defects in a witness testimony and in most cases, the IPO's Investigation Report.

I suggest you add this to what you will learn from other trusted hands in criminal litigation.

You are welcome.🙏

[Hanif...Wali, Esq. @iwHaNeeF]

@Chinaluemmanuel @ManCity Nothing like old taker. You wish your team could do that

[UEFA Champions League @ChampionsLeague]

2012 💙

#UCLfinal

[Akankeola Esq❤️✨ @akanksy]

FYI……

Consultation fee: fee paid to speak with a lawyer and get legal opinion/advice.

Appearance fee: fee paid to have a lawyer show up in court for you.

Retainership: fee paid to a lawyer so he can always be on stand by for you. Once you pay this, you can call that lawyer in the night and he'd show up for you. (It's this fee that can make you say boldly "I HAVE A LAWYER"

Don't mix them up

[Chinalu Okorie @Chinaluemmanuel]

There is a special assuring feeling of self-admiration that you feel when a Court assigns more capital offence files to you after satisfactorily concluding the one earlier assigned to you by the same Court.

You may not be expressly encouraged or praised for what you do. But the moment a court assigns more matters to you, it means the Court is pleased with your legal craft and would want to entrust more files, by extension, more lives into your hands.

If you are a (young) lawyer and you are currently at this point in your practice, you do not need to be told that your growth is outstanding.

Keep mastering the craft and growing. The world is watching you in admiration.
-----------------

If the above resonates with you, please share your story or experience with us.

You can also tag lawyers who easily come to mind after reading this.👨🏽‍⚖️

Enjoy the evening.

[FESTUS OGUN @mrfestusogun]

Compulsory Physical call to bar ceremony is outdated. We cannot be in digital age and still be held back analog ideas.

Virtual call to bar ceremony must be urgently considered.

[Fabian Sani Esq @FabianSani8]

To whom it may concern as copied from Taiwo Aromolarn on LinkedIn.

6 authorities every trial lawyer should cram (unless you enjoy being embarrassed in court)

1. 7UP Bottling Company v Abiola & Sons (1995); N.A.A v Orjiakor (1998)

When to use it:

Respondent’s Counsel tries to announce appearance in an ex-parte application.

Your objection:

“My Lord, this is an ex-parte application. Only the applicant can address the Court. There is no respondent before this Honourable Court. Even where the respondent is present, he can only be seen, not heard.”

Hint: This applies to lawyers “watching brief” too.

2. FRN v Bafarawa & Ors (2016)

When to use it:

Court refuses leave to amend your processes

Your response:

“My Lord, the object of the Court is to decide the rights of parties and not to punish for mistakes. We respectfully submit that this amendment is not a matter of favour or grace since it is neither fraudulent nor intended to overreach.”

3. Yunusa v Kano State (2022) (CA)

When to use it:

Opponent complains of irregularity after responding.

You respond:

“My Lord, the applicant seems to have lost sight of the fact that by filing a Reply on points of law to our so-called irregular counter-affidavit, he is deemed to have acquiesced and waived his right to argue against it. He cannot now approbate and reprobate.”

4. Dantile v APC & Ors (2020) (CA); Ekpoudom v APC & Anor (2020) (CA)

When to use it:
Opposing counsel argues that your exhibits are uncertified

You respond:

“My lord, it is trite law that documents attached or exhibited in the affidavit form part of the evidence adduced by the deponent. The issue of whether or not they are certified does not arise anymore.”

5. Nwankwo v Yar’Adua (2010)

When to use it:

An opponent fails to contest a fact that you adduced in evidence

You respond:

“My lord, it settled law that where a party neglects to contest an issue, it is deemed conceded. It is too late in the day for Counsel to raise it at this stage. It’s clearly an afterthought!”

6. Bode Thomas v FJSC (2016) SC; Maja v Samouris (2002) SC.

When to use it:

You cited the wrong law

OR

You mistakenly brought an application under the wrong section.

Your response:

“My noble lord, we apologize for the unfortunate oversight on our part. However, law is made for man and not man for the law. Your Lordship is clothed with extant powers to grant this order so long as there exists a rule of law which can back up our motion…

May we refer the court to [now, cite the appropriate law]”

Bonus tip: Get a book and start compiling your practice notes using these cases.

Lawyers, which of these stood out to you?
__

Save for later.
Repost to help other lawyers.

[Hanif...Wali, Esq. @iwHaNeeF]

@ataweweattorney I hope they raised the issue of jurisdiction before the Supreme Court. This might be the determining factor.

[Hanif...Wali, Esq. @iwHaNeeF]

@Chinaluemmanuel I feel like the guy may plead guilty. But then it's a capital offense

[TG OMORI @boy_director]

Run from bandits,
Run from police,
Run from thugs.