CLEEN Foundation has advocated for a functional parole system for inmates, to decongest the already overcrowded custodial centres in Nigeria, otherwise known as Nigerian Correctional Services, NcoS.
The parole system provides that inmates who have served non-parole period of 15 years of jail terms could be released for gradual rehabilitation and reintegration into the society on certain conditions.
This is a new correctional measure in the Nigerian penal system.
But stakeholders are unsettled that such provision is not being, implemented, findings in some sampled states of the federation are showing that if the innovation is effective, the country’s custodial facility would witness less jail breaks, corruption, rectivism among other challenges faced by prisoners.
Benefits of parole system
Speaking on the importance of having a functional parole system in Nigeria, Salaudeen Hashim, CLEEN Program Officer hinted: “It reduces the pressure on our custodial facilities, reduces frequent jailbreaks that we have seen. It also reduces grievances among inmates.
“People now have some sense of dignity, irrespective of the conditions they find themselves. It reduces the strain on our budget system, because for those who go on parole, we will have to take care of their welfare. And this in itself is part of the measure that government should look at as a measure to contain cost of governance.”
He added that the system provides some sense of ownership for community people because they become participants. “Because for you to enjoy parole, the conditionality should state that community should also be able to vouch for the fact that you should, during the period of the parole, because parole is not absolute. It is actually a gradual reintegration process”
“So in any place where communities pick the fact that you are not complying with the conditionalities, there are tendencies that your parole can be revoked.”
Except the policy is given a bite the innovation would only remain a policy on paper CLEEN Foundation found out since the inception of the policy on the administration of criminal justice.
This disclosure was made known at a media policy brief event in Lagos on Wednesday, 31, 2024, themed,”A Parole System Not Fit for Purpose: The Legal Framework of the Parole System in Nigeria.
Most states don’t have parole board-CLEEN
In an interview with CASEFILE, Hashim bore his mind on what is working with the parole system.
His words, “Generally, I think the only thing that is working is the fact that we have it in our external laws. That is the only thing that is working. Because again, in terms of those who benefit, there is no record of anybody, except for those who are the Politically Exposed Persons that could be said to have been beneficiary.
“And perhaps those ones are only beneficiaries under the prerogative of the security, not particularly the parole board. So those are the people we can say. But again, one of our findings suggests very clearly that those who benefit are politically exposed. But again, those with lower social status or economic status do not have any form of access to the parole list. So the issue of eligibility is also a problem. So generally, there is a problem with administration, with operationalisation, with the structure, with financing, with the entire conception.
“The only thing is that we have it in our laws, but there is no operationalisation of that law in any space.
“Most of the states have parole board. In most states, you don’t have. For those who even have it, the board don’t meet. There is no terms of reference for how the board should meet.
“There is no funding for the board to operationalise. You do not see any form of political activation around the board. In fact, in some states, the parole board chairperson lives outside the state, for some, outside the country, and they have never met at all since inauguration.
“For some states, they have never been inaugurated. So you realise that that in itself is a major gap. And again, in some places where the board exists, they are also conflicting with the existing prerogative of mercy committee, which also gives governors absolute powers.
“So because, again, there are perceptions that the parole board would actually be wearing down the powers of the governor, in this regard, so most states have refused to operationalise that particular provision because the parole clearly stipulates that recommendations can be given to the courts to actually consider an inmate for parole with a recommendation from the controller of the prison, but that is not functional because, again, the governors believe it would take away some of their powers.”
