Torture Without Consequence: Why Nigeria’s Criminal Justice Reform Must Move Beyond Laws
by Obinna Otuson, Innovative Lawyer Awardee
Obinna Otuso is a human rights lawyer from Nigeria and a recipient of the REDRESS Innovative Lawyers Award. He works with the Legend Golden Care Foundation, an organisation that provides pro bono legal services to indigent inmates, expands access to education for disadvantaged children, and supports victims of sexual abuse and exploitation.
In this blog, Obinna argues that despite existing laws such as the Anti-Torture Act 2017, torture remains widespread in Nigeria due to weak enforcement, lack of accountability, and systemic failures. He highlights the urgent need to move from legal reform and ensure effective implementation to protect human rights.
Nigeria has taken an important step in criminal justice reform by enacting the Anti-Torture Act 2017, a law designed to criminalise torture and protect individuals from abuse during investigations and detention. The law reflects international standards and Nigeria’s obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Yet nearly a decade after its passage, the reality remains troubling. Torture allegations persist, accountability is rare, and there has been little meaningful implementation of the law. Like many reforms within the criminal justice system, the challenge is no longer about passing legislation, but about ensuring that the law actually works.
A Law without Enforcement
When Nigeria enacted the Anti-Torture Act 2017, it was widely seen as a milestone. For the first time, torture was clearly defined as a criminal offence, and penalties were established for any public official who commits, orders, or tolerates such acts.
However, the existence of the law has not significantly changed practice. Reports by organisations such as Amnesty International and other frontline organiszations continue to document cases where individuals suspected of criminal activitys are beaten, threatened, or subjected to degrading treatment during interrogations. In many of these cases, victims struggle to obtain justice because investigations are rarely pursued and prosecutions remain extremely uncommon.
The result is a troubling contradiction: a strong law exists on paper, but its enforcement remains largely absent in practice.
Why Torture Persists
Several factors explain why torture remains a problem despite legal reform.
First, there is weak institutional accountability. Many allegations against law enforcement officers are handled internally, often without independent oversight. This creates an environment where abuse can occur without serious consequences.
Second, investigative capacity remains limited. In some cases, officers rely on forced confessions rather than modern investigative methods such as forensic evidence and intelligence gathering. This reliance on coercion reflects deeper structural problems within the criminal justice system.
Third, there is a culture of impunity within parts of the law enforcement system. When officers see that colleagues accused of torture are rarely punished, the practice gradually becomes normalised. Over time, torture begins to be seen as an accepted tool of investigation rather than a serious criminal offence.
Finally, victims often lack access to effective complaint mechanisms. Although institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission are mandated to investigate human rights violations, many victims are unaware of these channels or lack the resources to pursue legal action.
A Global Reminder of the Dangers of Torture
The consequences of torture are not limited to Nigeria. History offers powerful examples of how abuse within criminal investigations can destroy innocent lives.
One of the most widely known cases is that of Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was detained in 2002 while transiting through John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. Despite denying any involvement in terrorism, Arar was transferred to Syria under a controversial programme known as extraordinary rendition.
During his detention, he was repeatedly tortured and held in harsh conditions for months. Eventually, Syrian authorities admitted they had found no evidence linking him to terrorism and released him. A public inquiry in Canada later confirmed that intelligence failures had contributed to his wrongful detention.
Arar’s story demonstrates a painful truth: torture does not strengthen justice — it undermines it. When authorities rely on coercion rather than evidence, the risk of wrongful accusations and miscarriages of justice becomes dangerously high.
Lessons for Nigeria’s Criminal Justice Reform
Nigeria’s challenge today is not a lack of legal frameworks. Between the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the Anti-Torture Act 2017, the country already has important safeguards designed to prevent abuse during criminal investigations.
What is missing is implementation.
Authorities must ensure that torture allegations are promptly investigated and that offenders are prosecuted under the law. Law enforcement agencies should also invest in professional training that prioritiszes modern investigative techniques rather than coercive interrogation methods.
Equally important is transparency. Independent monitoring of detention facilities and stronger oversight mechanisms can help ensure that the rights of suspects are protected.
Conclusion
Nigeria’s commitment to criminal justice reform will ultimately be measured not by the laws it passes, but by how effectively those laws are enforced. The Anti-Torture Act 2017 was intended to end torture within the justice system, yet its promise remains largely unrealiszed. If the country is serious about protecting human dignity and strengthening the rule of law, implementation must become the next stage of reform. Until then, the question remains: can a justice system truly claim to uphold the law while failing to enforce one of its most important protections?
About the Innovative Lawyers Awards
REDRESS’s Innovative Lawyers Awards recognise the vital work of new and emerging anti-torture champions, expose them to a broader peer support network, provide financial support to pursue public interest litigation and to inspire other lawyers and practitioners. This support is made available through the United against Torture Consortium, which is funded by the European Union. The contents of the Innovative Lawyers Awards blog series are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or REDRESS.
