Nigeria’s Criminal Justice System: Legal Gaps, Human Rights Concerns, and Comparative Lessons for Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nigeria’s criminal justice system lacks adequate mental health provisions, leading to human rights violations and worsening psychiatric conditions among offenders. This study examines Nigeria’s compliance with international standards, particularly the Mandela Rules, using a descriptive research design. Based on the 2018 prison Audit Report, it examines mental health services, jail regulations, and legal protections. Structured oversight with respect to South Africa, the United States, and Canada has been highlighted through a comparative analysis. South Africa guarantees judicial oversight, whereas Canada’s NCRMD structure ensures rehabilitation. States in the US differ in how they balance treatment and incarceration. Nigeria, in contrast to South Africa and Canada, lacks formal evaluations and reintegration programs and instead depends on administrative discretion. This paper argues for a human rights-based strategy, including legislative safeguards, frequent psychiatric examinations, and rehabilitation programs. The protection of mentally ill offenders, public safety, and justice can all be enhanced by putting these ideas into practice. Nigeria's mental health legislation will advance if it conforms to international best practices.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".