PLEA BARGAINING IN NIGERIA: JUSTICE, COMPROMISE, OR INSTITUTIONALIZED INEQUALITY?

Abstract

Plea bargaining has become a significant aspect of criminal justice in Nigeria, especially after it was officially recognised by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Originally associated with adversarial legal systems such as that of the United States, it was introduced into Nigeria as a practical response to systemic challenges including prolonged trials and prison overcrowding. While it offers clear benefits, its growing use has generated considerable debate among legal practitioners, scholars and the public. Questions persist as to whether plea bargaining truly advances justice or undermines fairness and the principle of equal treatment under the law.

This article examines the tension between the efficiency gains of plea bargaining and the concerns it raises regarding justice, transparency and fairness. Adopting a doctrinal and analytical approach, the study finds that plea bargaining has improved procedural efficiency and facilitated quicker resolution of criminal cases compared to traditional trials. However, significant concerns remain, particularly in relation to prosecutorial discretion, the transparency of negotiated agreements and the consistency of outcomes. The absence of clear sentencing guidelines and uneven judicial oversight further increases the risk of abuse and weakens public confidence in the criminal justice system.

In light of these challenges, the article recommends key reforms, including strengthening judicial review of plea agreements and establishing clearer sentencing guidelines to promote fairness, consistency and accountability in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria.