Some Lagos-based lawyers have raised legal and policy concerns over the Federal Government’s plan to remove the option of fines for people convicted of drug-related offences.
The lawyers said the proposal must follow proper legislative procedure and should not be implemented through administrative action alone.
Their reactions followed reports that the Federal Government is considering the removal of fine options for convicted drug traffickers as part of efforts to strengthen Nigeria’s anti-drug laws.
The government and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency have described the current fine option as a loophole that weakens the fight against drug trafficking and related crimes.
The proposed reform is expected to form part of broader amendments to Nigeria’s anti-drug legal framework.
However, Mr Spurgeon Ataene, a rights activist, said the move may be premature unless Nigeria’s correctional system is properly reformed.
Ataene told the News Agency of Nigeria in Lagos that imprisonment, fines and probation usually operate together in many justice systems.
According to him, removing fines without improving prison rehabilitation programmes could worsen the problem of repeat offending.
He said many custodial centres in Nigeria are still more punitive than correctional, making it possible for offenders to return from prison worse than they were before conviction.
Ataene argued that the government should first strengthen rehabilitation structures within the Nigerian Correctional Service before abolishing fines in drug cases.
He also called for stronger collaboration between the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency and the Nigerian Correctional Service.
According to him, both agencies should work together to prevent drug trafficking and drug abuse within custodial centres.
Ataene said only after such reforms are working effectively should government consider removing the fine option completely.
Chief Benson Ndakara, a former NDLEA operative, also said the proposed removal of fines must be backed by an amendment to the relevant law.
Ndakara explained that judges would continue to have sentencing discretion where the law still allows a fine or where the statute does not expressly prohibit it.
He said the government could not remove the option of fines by policy statement or administrative directive.
According to him, the enabling law must first be amended to clearly state that convicted drug traffickers cannot be given the option of a fine.
Ndakara said once the law is amended, judges would be bound to impose the penalties provided by the new legislation.
He noted that any attempt to bypass the legal process could create confusion in sentencing and weaken the reform.
A litigation lawyer, Mrs Vivian Ekwegh, said the government should also consider the realities of the criminal justice system before adopting stricter penalties.
She said the first major reform should be to make correctional centres truly rehabilitative rather than merely punitive.
Ekwegh argued that some people arrested in drug-related cases may be victims of circumstance or may have been unknowingly used by traffickers.
She cited a case involving a spare parts dealer who was charged with conspiracy and drug exportation after drugs were allegedly hidden in an electrical sofa stand without his knowledge.
According to her, strict punishment must be balanced with safeguards to prevent innocent people from suffering severe consequences.
She said justice should target real traffickers while protecting people who may have been deceived, exploited or falsely implicated.
The lawyers agreed that drug trafficking remains a serious crime that requires firm enforcement.
They, however, maintained that reforms must respect due process, judicial independence and the need for effective rehabilitation.
They urged the Federal Government, NDLEA, lawmakers and justice-sector stakeholders to carefully review the proposal before making final changes to the law.
The debate has renewed attention on Nigeria’s drug control framework, sentencing practices, correctional reforms and the balance between deterrence and justice.
