A former Minister of Aviation, Osita Chidoka, has criticised “excessive and unrealistic” weaponisation of bail conditions imposed by Nigerian courts, warning that such requirements effectively deny accused persons their constitutional right to bail and undermine the principles of justice.
In a statement titled “Bail and the Dignity of the Law: A Call For Judicial Restraint,” the former Minister questioned a recent ruling by a High Court in Abuja, which granted bail to a defendant but imposed conditions he argued were virtually impossible for ordinary Nigerians to satisfy.
Chidoka recalled that the court required the defendant’s sureties to be serving federal civil servants on Grade Level 16 or above, each possessing Abuja properties worth at least N500 million, while one surety was also required to provide a bank guarantee of N15billion.
Chidoka argued that the conditions bore no relationship to the realities of public service in Nigeria, warning that “the law could not have intended or envisaged the weaponisation of wealth over character.”
He noted that a civil servant who begins service at Grade Level 08 and rises to Grade Level 16 after nearly three decades would likely earn between N80million and N100million over an entire career.
“By the court’s ruling, we are asking that officer to show assets worth five times his lifetime earnings, and to stand behind a liability of N15billion, roughly 150 times everything an honest career could ever yield,” Chidoka said.
According to him, such requirements imply that lawful public service is insufficient to produce the level of wealth courts now expect from individuals deemed trustworthy enough to stand as sureties.
“What message does this send?” he questioned. “It says, in the plainest terms, that lawful public service cannot produce the wealth the court now expects of a respectable citizen and that the civil servant worth trusting is the one who has, somehow, acquired what his salary could never explain.
“In an anti-corruption case, of all places, that is a strange proxy for integrity.”
He also criticised the requirement that sureties surrender their passports, arguing that it could hinder senior government officials who travel on official assignments.
“The passport condition compounds the error. Senior officers travel on the nation’s business to negotiations, conferences, and training,” he said.
“Stripping them of their passports merely to vouch for an accused person interferes with the very duties the state employs them to perform,” Chidoka added.
Drawing a comparison with other jurisdictions, Chidoka said similar conditions would be considered disproportionate and outrageous elsewhere.
“To grasp the scale of it, imagine requiring a British official to own property in Belgravia, Chelsea or Mayfair before he could stand surety, and to produce a bank guarantee of £8.2 million,” the former minister said.
“Such a proposition would immediately raise questions about proportionality and public outrage.”
He further argued that existing Nigerian law expressly prohibits excessive bail conditions.
Citing Section 165 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), Chidoka noted that bail conditions “shall not be excessive.”
He also referenced the Court of Appeal judgment in Dasuki v. Director-General, State Security Service (SSS), which he said rejected the use of serving public servants as sureties and struck down a N100million bail requirement.
The full statement reads:
Bail and the Dignity of the Law: A Call For Judicial Restraint
In a recent ruling of a High Court in Abuja, the defendant was granted bail, rightly, for the prosecution offered no persuasive reason to refuse it according to the ruling, yet on terms few honest Nigerians could ever meet.
The sureties must be serving federal civil servants of Grade Level 16 or above. Each must own Abuja property worth ₦500 million. One must furnish a bank guarantee of ₦15 billion.
Consider the economics. An officer who enters service at Grade Level 08 and climbs over some twenty-eight years to Grade Level 16 may earn, across an entire career, between ₦80 and ₦100 million. Out of that come housing, the education of children, healthcare, transport, and other living expenses.
By the court’s ruling, we are asking that officer to show assets worth five times his lifetime earnings — and to stand behind a liability of ₦15 billion, roughly 150 times everything an honest career could ever yield.
What message does this send? It says, in the plainest terms, that lawful public service cannot produce the wealth the court now expects of a respectable citizen and that the civil servant worth trusting is the one who has, somehow, acquired what his salary could never explain. In an anti-corruption case, of all places, that is a strange proxy for integrity.
The passport condition compounds the error. Senior officers travel on the nation’s business to negotiations, conferences, training. Stripping them of their passports merely to vouch for an accused person interferes with the very duties the state employs them to perform.
To grasp the scale of it, imagine requiring a British official to own property in Belgravia, Chelsea or Mayfair street before he could stand surety, and to produce a bank guarantee of 8.2 million pounds, (equivalent of 15 billion Naira) Such a proposition would immediately raise questions about proportionality and public outrage.
And the law has spoken. Section 165 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act commands that bail conditions “shall not be excessive.” In Dasuki v. D.G., SSS, the Court of Appeal held the use of serving public servants as sureties unknown to our law, contrary to the Public Service Rules, and corrosive of the fight against corruption — and struck down a ₦100 million requirement. We have answered that ruling with ₦500 million and a guarantee of ₦15 billion.
There is a final incoherence. A court that finds no real risk of flight cannot, in the same breath, impose conditions fit for a fugitive of vast and unexplained means. Conditions that cannot be met are not conditions; they are a denial of bail by arithmetic, keeping the presumed-innocent in detention not because the law demanded it, but because their freedom was priced out of reach.
The focus remains bail application and not the innocence or otherwise of accused persons. The war against corruption is won by lawful means or it is not won at all. Let the courts secure attendance at trial, that is their duty, and let them stop there.
The purpose of bail is to guarantee appearance. It was never to measure a man’s wealth, to punish him before his guilt is proved, or to make honest public service a thing to be ashamed of.
Time to end this fixation with civil servants as sureties and Maitama and Asokoro as the only measure of value before our courts. It is discriminatory and humiliating for those who do not live in the court sanctioned prime neighbourhood and cast a cloud of corruption on public servants.
On both counts, the law could not have intended or envisaged the weaponisation of wealth over character.
