A Comparative Analysis of the Power of the Attorney-General to Enter a Nolle Prosequi under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 1999 Nigerian Constitution gives the Attorney-General the power to enter a nolle prosequi in criminal proceedings. There are no constitutional provisions that expressly subject the exercise of the constitutional power of nolle prosequi by the Attorney-General to judicial review. This lacuna is being abused, as some Nigerian attorneys-general have, since the coming into force of the Constitution on 29 May 1999, sought sanctuary under it to free persons standing court trial for serious criminal offences through the exercise of nolle prosequi for their selfish interest or political considerations. The pertinent issue is whether the entering of a nolle prosequi in criminal trials in pursuance of the ulterior motives of an Attorney-General is constitutional. This article undertakes comparative analysis of pertinent issues involved in the exercise of nolle prosequi. The methodology is mainly doctrinal analysis of applicable primary and secondary sources. The article argues that the exercise of nolle prosequi for an Attorney-General’s selfish interest or political considerations is unconstitutional. Nigeria should subject the exercise of nolle prosequi to the court’s permission, as practiced in the United States of America and Kenya.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".