1 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984. It entered into force on 26 June 1987 in accordance with art 27(1) UN Treaty Series, vol 1465 at 85. There are 173 states that are party to the Convention; Nigeria signed it on 28 July 1988 and ratified it on 28 June 2001.

2 Similarly to UNCAT art 2, art 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) obligates states to adopt legislative or any other measures to give effect to the rights proclaimed in the Charter. It was adopted on 1 June 1981 and entered into force on 21 October 1986; 54 states are party to it. Nigeria signed the Charter on 31 August 1982 and ratified it domestically on 22 June 1983, depositing its instrument of ratification on 22 July 1983.

3 ACHPR Res 61 (XXXII) 02 Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (Robben Island Guidelines) 2008, available at: <https://www.apt.ch/sites/default/files/publications/RobbenIsland_ENG_0.pdf> (last accessed 7 February 2024).

4 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner “In initial dialogue with Nigeria, experts of Committee against Torture questioned the fight against terrorism, and conditions of detention”, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27824&LangID=E> (last accessed 31 January 2022).

5 The Anti-Torture Act 2017 is available online and can be accessed through LawPavilion, a legal database in Nigeria, available at: <https://primsol.lawpavilion.com> (last accessed 14 February 2024). Also see a copy of the Act at: <https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng/2018/ng-government-gazette-dated-2018-01-09-no-3.pdf> (last accessed 14 February 2024). There are several versions of the Act available online; they are mostly only the bill. Though the Act is not available on the National Assembly website at the time of writing, it contains the same content as the bill but differs in its section numbering. For example, the right to examination is found in sec 6 of the bill and sec 7 of the Act. Similarly, sec 8 of the bill corresponds to sec 9 of the Act, which outlines penalties for perpetrators of torture. Other laws in Nigeria, eg the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), cap C23, LFN 2004 (1999 Constitution) and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, do not criminalize torture per se. Also see art 29(d) of Kenya's Constitution of 2010 and art 15(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. All these laws prohibit torture; however, they do not provide for effective prevention or punishment. Also see CE Obiagwu “Understanding and applying the provisions of the Anti-Torture Act 2017”, available at: <https://nji.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Obiagwu-SAN-paper.pdf> (last accessed 12 June 2023). Obiagwu was a member of the National Committee against Torture, which provides that sec 9 of the Act outlines the penalties for perpetrators.

6 Anti-Torture Act 2017, sec 2(1).

7 For the purpose of this Act, torture includes physical torture, which refers to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which causes pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the body, such as systematic beatings, head-banging, punching, kicking, striking with rifle butts and jumping on the stomach; food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or human excreta or other food not normally eaten; electric shocks, cigarette burning, burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid, by the rubbing of pepper or other chemical substances on mucous membranes, or acids or spices directly on wounds; the submersion of the head in water or water polluted with excrement, urine, vomit or blood; blindfolding; threatening a person or persons related or known to him with bodily harm, execution or other wrongful acts; confinement in solitary cells held in public places; confinement in solitary cells against their will or without prejudice to their security; prolonged interrogation to deny a normal length of sleep or rest; causing unscheduled transfer of a person from one place to another; or creating the belief that he shall be summarily executed, etc.

8 In Ehuwa v Osie [2006] 18 NWLR (pt 1012) 544, it was held by the Supreme Court that the eiusdem generis rule simply means that in interpreting the provisions of a statute, general words which follow particular and specific words of the same nature as themselves take their meaning from those specific words.

9 European Commission of Human Rights The Greek case, application no 3321/67 – Denmark v Greece. Also see Opinion of the Commission of 5 November 1969 in The Greek case (1969), Yearbook 12 at 461.

10 Burgers, J and Danelius, H The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1988, Martinus Nijhoff) at 118Google Scholar; Rodley, NS and Pollard, M The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (3rd ed, 2009, Oxford University Press) at 91Google Scholar.

11 Selmouni v France [1999] 29 EHRR 403 101.

12 Alexander Grasimov v Kazakhstan Communication No 433/2010, UN doc CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 (10 July 2012), paras 2.2–2.3.

13 Ireland v United Kingdom [1979–80] 2 EHRR 25 at 162.

14 Ingelse, C The United Nation Committee against Torture: An Assessment (2001, Kluwer Law International) at 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 99.

16 UN HRC “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak”, UN doc A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 (9 February 2010), para 37.

17 Communication 225/98, Fourteenth Activity Report [2000] AHRLR 273 (ACHPR 2000), para 41. Also see Viljoen, F and Odinkalu, C The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment in the African Human Rights System: A Handbook for Victims and Their Advocates (2006, World Organisation Against Torture) at 41Google Scholar.

18 See UN HRC “Report”, above at note 16, paras 58–71.

19 Josu Arkauz Arana (author) v France, Communication No 63/1997, UN doc CAT/C/23/D/63/1997 (2000).

20 Hajrizi Dzemajl et al v Yugoslavia [2002] CAT/C/29/D/161/2000 (2 December 2002), para 18.3.

21 See UN HRC “Report”, above at note 16, para 34.

22 Rodley, NS, “The definition(s) of torture in international law” (2002) 55 Current Legal Problems 1 at 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 UNCAT, art 1. Also see Rodley “The definition(s)”, ibid.

24 See UN HRC “Report”, above at note 16, para 39.

25 Cullen, A “Defining torture in international law: A critique of the concept employed by the European Court of Human Rights” (2003) 31 California West International Law Journal 29 at 34Google Scholar.

26 Sadiq Shek Elmi v Australia, Communication No 120/1998, UN doc CAT/C/22/D/12-/1998 (1999), para 6.5.

27 Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés v Chad [2000] 74/92.

28 The available online resources regarding Nigeria are from LawPavilion; no Nigeria Weekly Law Reports have reported any case of torture where judges invoke the Act.

29 BA Garner and H Campbell Black Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed, 2009, West).

30 Nigeria Customs Service Board v Mohammed [2015] LPELR-25938(CA) at 37–40, paras B–D.

31 Igweokolo v Akpoyibo [2017] LPELR-41882(CA).

32 Odiong v Asst IGP [2013] LPELR-20698(CA).

33 Ovuokeroye v State [2020] LPELR-51247(CA).

34 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 December 1966 by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI); entered into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with art 49 (ICCPR), art 4.

35 “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

36 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 2: Implementation of article 2 by states parties, CAT/C/GC/2 (24 January 2008), paras 5 and 7.

37 Id, para 5.

38 An example of internal political instability could be the many coups d’état that have happened in Nigeria, in 1966, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1990 and 1993.

39 UN HRC “Report”, above at note 16, para 42.

40 UNCAT, art 4. See also UN Committee against Torture, General Comment No 2, above at note 36.

41 See UN HRC “Report”, above at note 16 at 47–49.

42 Sec 8(1) of the Act provides that anyone who participates in the infliction of torture will be liable as the principal actor.

43 Criminal Code LN 112 of 1964, cap C38; Penal Code LN 47 of 1955.

44 Obiagwu “Understanding and applying”, above at note 5 at 15.

45 Ibid.

46 Okinawa v State [2015] LPELR-24517 (CA).

47 Ibid; according to Philomena Mbua Ekpe, JCA, at 10–16.

48 Nowak, M and McArthur, E The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary (2008, Oxford University Press) at 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Id at 196.

50 1999 Constitution, sched 2, part 1, sec 31; also see United Nations Human Rights Office “Initial dialogue”, above at note 4.

51 The terms “confession”, “admission” and “statement” do not mean the same thing. The Evidence Act 2011, sec 20, states: “An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or conduct which suggests any inferences as to any fact in issue or relevant fact”, while a confession is defined in sec 28 as “an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”.

52 ACJA, secs 16 and 17. Also see the Police Act 2020, sec 67.

53 Sec 35(2) and (3) of the Police Act obligates the arresting officer to inform the accused of his / her rights to remain silent and not say anything except in the presence of his / her legal practitioner; if s/he cannot get a legal practitioner, free legal aid can be provided from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria. Also see ACJA, sec 6.

54 Nigeria Code of Criminal Procedure, sec 9.

55 The Police Act 2020, sec 31, and the ACJA, sec 3, provide that a suspect arrested shall be investigated according to the law.

56 Also see ACJA, sec 8.

57 Secs 44 and 89 provide that the arresting officer or officer in charge must keep updated details of the accused person daily if s/he remains in police custody, and where an accused person is shot, killed or wounded, the details and circumstance must be recorded by the commanding officer. Where the details are not recorded, the commanding officer risks disciplinary action.

58 Ibid, secs 44(4) and 60.

59 RIG, art 19. Also see United Nations Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol), available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/en/publications/policy-and-methodological-publications/istanbul-protocol-manual-effective-0> (last accessed 14 February 2024).

60 Onah v Okenwa [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt 1194) 512; also see Ajayi v The State [2013] 9 NWLR (Pt 1360) 589. It is imperative to consider whether the NPF is the appropriate institution to handle complaints from tortured detainees.

61 UN HRC CCPR General Comment No 20: Article 7 (prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), UN doc A/44/40 (10 March 1992), para 14, available at: <https://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb0.html> (last accessed 22 March 2022). Also see Nowak and McArthur The United Nations Convention, above at note 48 at 347, where they describe a “competent authority”, apart from a court, as including the National Human Rights Commission, the ombudsman, detention-monitoring commissions, public prosecutors, police chiefs, prison directors and administrative agencies.

62 See Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 148.

63 UN HRC CCPR General Comment No 7: Article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) (30 May 1982), para 1, available at: <https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/1982/en/38675> (last accessed 10 February 2024). Please note that General Comment No 7 has been replaced by General Comment No 20. Also see UN HRC General Comment No 20, above at note 61, para 14; Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 147.

64 Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention, above at note 48 at 346.

65 Blanco Abad v Spain [1998] UN doc CAT/C/20/D/59/199, para 8.2. Also see Rajapakse v Sri Lanka [2006] UN doc CCPR/C/87/D/1250/2004, para 9.4.

66 Mohammed Alzery v Sweden UNHRC, UN doc CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (10 November 2006), para 11.7. Also see Boniface Ntikarahera v Burundi, UN doc CAT/C/52/D/503/2012, where an investigation was not conducted for four years.

67 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, Communication No 245/2002 [2006] ACHPR 73 (25 May 2006), para 58, available at: <https://media.africanlii.org/files/judgments/2006/73/2006-73.pdf> (last accessed 14 February 2024).

68 UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violation of International Human Rights and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (16 December 2005).

69 The Witness Protection Bill passed in a second reading in the Senate on Tuesday 25 January 2022; available at: <https://placng.org/Legist/witness-protection-bill-passes-second-reading-at-the-senate/> (last accessed 9 February 2022).

70 Anti-Torture Act 2017, sec 7(2).

71 Id, sec 7(4).

72 Also see RIG, art 50.

73 See Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 155. Also see UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3 (2012): Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Implementation of article 14 by states parties, CAT/C/GC/3 (13 December 2012), arts 29–36.

74 See Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention, above at note 48 at 468–69.

75 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Commission) General Comment No 4 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The right to redress for victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment (article 5), art 21. This was adopted at the 21st Extraordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Gambia, and requires states to have both law and institutions that provide for redress. Also see UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, arts 5 and 19–22.

76 See Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 159; UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, art 4; African Commission General Comment No 4, ibid, para 21.

77 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73. Also see Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 155; UN Basic Principles, above at note 68, arts 15–23.

78 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, art 8. Also see African Commission General Comment No 4, above at note 75, art 36.

79 In UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, arts 9–10, the Committee held that monetary compensation might not be enough; however, the compensation awarded to the victim must be sufficient. Also see Keppa Urra Guridi v Spain, Communication No 212/2002, UN doc CAT/C/34/D212/2002, para 6.8; African Commission General Comment No 4, above at note 75, arts 37–39; Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 156.

80 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, arts 11–15, points out that rehabilitation must entail that the victim is self-sufficient and if possible acquires a new set of skills. Also see African Commission General Comment No 4, above at note 75, arts 40–43.

81 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, arts 16–17, specifies that satisfaction entails that there is a stop to the continued violation of the victims’ rights and that there must be a full disclosure of the truth to the public with an apology. Also see African Commission General Comment No 4, above at note 75 at 44.

82 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, art 18. Also see African Commission General Comment No 4, above at note 75 at 45–49.

83 “[O]ther legal remedies [are] available to the victim under existing laws, including the right to claim compensation.”

84 ACJA, secs 319(1) and 321.

85 Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009, preamble 3(e).

86 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner “Justice for Nigerian complainants supported by the UN fund for torture victims” (30 October 2020), available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/JusticeForNigerian.aspx> (last accessed 10 February 2022).

87 See Mutombo v Switzerland [1994] UN doc CAT/C/12/D/13/1993. Also see UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 1: Implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of art 22 (refoulement and communications) (21 November 1997), A/53/44, annex IX.

88 Burgers and Danelius, The United Nations Convention, above at note 10 at 148.

89 UN HRC General Comment No 20, above at note 61, para 9. Also see UN HRC General Comment No 31 (80), The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on states parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (26 May 2004), para 12.

90 UNCAT, art 3(2).

91 Id, art 6(1)–(4).

92 Id, art 7(1).

93 Id, arts 7(3), 9 and 8.

94 See Rodley and Pollard The Treatment, above at note 10 at 173.

95 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 1, above at note 87, para 6. Also see Rodley and Pollard, id at 173.

96 RIG, para 15.

97 Viljoen and Odinkalu The Prohibition of Torture, above at note 17 at 52.

98 ACHPR, art 7.

99 National Commission for Refugees Act LFN 2004, 29 December 1989, cap N21; Ratification and Enforcement Act LFN 1990, cap 10.

100 UN HRC General Comment No 20, above at note 61, para 10.

101 RIG, art 46.

102 “The Attorney-General of the Federation and other concerned parties shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture is fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.”

103 Network of Police Reform in Nigeria “Criminal force: Torture, abuse and extrajudicial killings by the Nigeria Police Force 2010”, available at: <https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/criminal-force-torture-abuse-and-extrajudicial-killings-nigeria-police-force> (last accessed 22 March 2022).

104 Human Rights Watch “‘Everyone's in on the game’: Corruption and human rights abuses by the Nigeria Police Force” (17 August 2018), available at: <https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/08/17/everyones-game/corruption-and-human-rights-abuses-nigeria-police-force> (last accessed 14 February 2024).

105 BabanUmma, MB, Maiwada, M and Ibrahim, A “Extra judicial killing and the rule of engagement in the Nigeria Police Force” (2019) 4/3 Kogi State University Journal of Sociology 31 at 38Google Scholar.

106 PRAWA is a non-governmental organization that provides human rights support to people in prisons and helps those who have survived prison to integrate back into society; <https://www.prawa.org> (last accessed 28 March 2022).

107 U Agomoh et al Manual on Human Rights Training and Torture Prevention for the Police (2011) at 1, available at: <https://www.prawa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/MANUAL-ON-HUMAN-RIGHTS-TRAINING-AND-TORTURE-PREVENTION-FOR-THE-POLICE.pdf> (last accessed 14 February 2024).

108 Module 1 is an introduction to the NPF, while Module 2 examines what training on human rights entails. Module 3 looks at the reasoning behind protecting the rights of detainees and prisoners. Module 4 provides an overview of human rights instruments. Module 5 focuses on the 1979 UN code of conduct for law enforcement officials, and modules 6, 7 and 8 focus on the instruments in relation to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and the effect of non-observance of human rights principles, with exercises; Module 9 poses questions to the police officers attending or who might attend the training in future to recommend what could enhance the implementation of national or international legislation.

109 Amnesty International “Nigeria. Special Police Squad: Get rich torturing detainees”, available at: <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/09/nigeria-special-police-squad-get-rich-torturing-detainees/> (last accessed 22 March 2022).

110 Ladapo, OA “Effective investigations, a pivot to efficient criminal justice administration: Challenges in Nigeria” (2011) 5 African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies 79 at 82Google Scholar.

111 “I-G restates commitment of Nigeria Police Force to human rights protection” (13 November 2018) Vanguard, available at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/11/i-g-restates-commitment-of-nigeria-police-force-to-human-rights-protection/ (last accessed 11 February 2024).

112 The best solution to this type of training would be to involve all area commandants, who will then go back to their unit and empower each officer. Moreover, training of officers should be increased to one year, six months of which would be on human rights education.

113 UN Economic and Social Council Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Impunity – Report of the independent expert to update the set of principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher: Updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity. Commission on Human Rights 61st session E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1 (8 February 2005).

114 UN Basic Principles, above at note 68, art 3(c).

115 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, paras 38–41. Also see UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 2, above at note 36, para 5.

116 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, para 42. Also see RIG, art 16(b).

117 1999 Constitution, sec 308.

118 Armed Forces Act LFN 1994, cap A20.

119 UN Committee against Torture General Comment No 3, above at note 73, para 40.

120 The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2391 (XXIII) of 26 November 1968, art 1.

121 UN Economic and Social Council Promotion and Protection, above at note 113, para b.

122 UN Committee against Torture Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Turkey, UN doc CAT/C/CR/30/5 (27 May 2003), para 7(c); UN Committee against Torture Conclusion and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Chile, UN doc CAT/C/CR/32/5 (14 May 2004), para 7(f).

123 Public Officers Protection Act 1916, sec 2. Also see Egbe v Alhaji [1990] 1 NWLR (part 128) at 546; Bureau of Public Enterprises v Reinsurance Acquisition Group Ltd and Others [2008] LPELR-8560(CA), according to Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JCA, at 41, paras B–D.

124 Mining Cadastre Office v UIG Petroleum & Transport Investment Ltd [2018] LPELR-46046(CA).

125 VV Tarhule and Y Omguga “Curbing incidences of torture through legislation: Focus on the Nigerian Anti-Torture Act” 2017 Benue State University Law Journal 30 at 40.

126 UN Committee against Torture Concluding observations in the absence of the initial report of Nigeria, UN doc CAT/C/NGA/COAR/1 (21 December 2021) at 15.

127 Sahara Reporters “Why torture remains prevalent in Nigeria – RULAAC” (26 June 2021) Sahara Reporters, available at: <https://saharareporters.com/2021/06/26/why-torture-remains-prevalent-nigeria-rulaac> (last accessed 27 April 2023). Also see the National Human Rights Commission “Report of the Presidential Panel on the Reform of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police Force (2018)”, available at: <https://www.nigeriarights.gov.ng/files/publications/VOL%20I-%20EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY%20OF%20REPORT%20OF%20THE%20PRESIDENTIAL%20PANEL%20ON%20SARS%20REFORM.pdf> (last accessed 27 April 2023), which found that “some officers believed that they had the right to beat up suspects, force them to talk or injure them as the established practice of extracting confessions from suspects”, which implies that most police officers lack awareness of the provisions of the Anti-Torture Act.

128 Joint Alternative Report submitted in application to article 19 of the UN Committee against Torture and Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, 72nd session of the UN Committee against Torture for the examination of Nigeria (2021) at 18.

129 Amnesty International “Nigeria 2021”, available at: <https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/west-and-central-africa/nigeria/report-nigeria/> (last accessed 31 July 2022).