Global counter-narcotics efforts are only successful depending on how far these agencies domiciled in the different Member Nations of the International community combating drug trafficking are actually able to reduce RE-OFFENDING.
This is because of the verifiable fact that reducing reoffending is one of the main goals of criminal justice interventions. Reducing reoffending, according to a literature review done by experts at the United Nations Office on Drugs and crime, leads to fewer victims, greater community safety as well as less pressure on and lower costs for the criminal justice system.
The relevant United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice, in particular the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules), the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (The Bangkok Rules), reaffirm the importance of reducing reoffending and various measures as a means to prevent recidivism and protect society.
Reducing reoffending was one of the main themes at the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, including through deliberations among Member States and a dedicated workshop on the topic. The commitment to reduce reoffending is firmly reflected in the outcome document of the Congress, the Kyoto Declaration.
Expert Group Meeting on Reducing Reoffending (6-8 April 2022)
In December 2021, Member States adopted General Assembly resolution 76/182 entitled “Reducing reoffending through rehabilitation and reintegration”, which encouraged Member States to develop comprehensive strategies or action plans to reduce reoffending. The resolution also requested the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) “to convene an expert group meeting to share information on promising practices to reduce reoffending, with a view to developing model strategies on reducing reoffending, which can serve as useful tools for Member States, taking into account relevant provisions in the existing standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice, current developments, research, tools and the outcome of the deliberations of the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice”.
Pursuant to this request, UNODC convened a virtual expert group meeting from 6 to 8 April 2022. The meeting took place with interpretation in all official languages of the United Nations and was attended by twenty-seven experts from all regions who participated in their individual capacity. The experts discussed key elements to consider in identifying measures to reduce reoffending and exchanged information on promising practices to reduce reoffending. A report of the expert group meeting was presented to the 31st session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) as a conference room paper. So, the above summary tells us one thing: that the governments of nations around the globe are actually taking steps to quicken the adoption and implementation of quick-win strategies for achieving the holistic objective of a fundamental reduction in RE-OFFENDING by drug trafficking gangs including drug barons or drug lords.
Besides, the escalating menace of drug trafficking in Nigeria has reached alarming levels, posing a severe threat to public health, national security, and the socio-economic fabric of the country. Despite the relentless efforts of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) to combat this scourge, a critical flaw persists in the judiciary’s frequent imposition of fines on convicted drug traffickers rather than mandatory imprisonment. This systemic weakness not only emboldens drug barons but also undermines the sacrifices made by law enforcement agencies working tirelessly to protect Nigeria’s borders and its people from the devastating impact of narcotics.
Recent cases involving alleged notorious drug kingpins like Christian Ifeanyi Ogbuji, Uwaezuoke Ikenna Christian, and Agbo Chidike Prince have highlighted a disturbing pattern where convicted traffickers, after paying their fines, resume their illegal activities with even greater intensity. These instances should serve as a wake-up call to the judiciary and the National Assembly to reconsider the penalties imposed on drug offenders, eliminating the option of fines that only embolden these alleged criminals. If Nigeria is serious about combating drug trafficking and its detrimental effects on society, then harsher, more uncompromising sentences must be enforced.
Barely sixteen months after his initial conviction, Christian Ifeanyi Ogbuji was intercepted again by the NDLEA at Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos. This time, Ogbuji was allegedly caught with 817 wraps of cocaine weighing 19.40 kilograms and worth an estimated street value of over N4.6 billion. His previous conviction in May 2023 for ingesting 93 pellets of cocaine had resulted in a two-year imprisonment sentence with an option of a fine of N3,000,000, which he promptly paid. The ease with which Ogbuji was alleged to have navigated the criminal justice system and reportedly resumed his operations demonstrates how fines serve not as deterrents but rather as minor setbacks for drug lords, allowing them to continue their trade with impunity.
Similarly, Uwaezuoke Ikenna Christian’s journey reflects the consequences of lenient judicial sentencing. After initially absconding from a bail granted under certain conditions, Uwaezuoke was later caught attempting to export cocaine to India under a different identity. His subsequent conviction allowed him to pay a fine instead of serving a substantial prison sentence. The option of fines has become a loophole exploited by traffickers who view the penalties as mere business expenses, enabling them to maintain their grip on the drug trade.
Agbo Chidike Prince’s case further underscores this point. Despite pleading guilty to trafficking substantial quantities of cocaine, Agbo was only subjected to a life sentence after repeated offenses and no longer had the option of a fine. These examples indicate a broader systemic issue where lenient sentences fail to disrupt the operational frameworks of drug cartels.
Drug trafficking is a high-stakes, profit-driven enterprise that does not respond to fines as a punitive measure. Fines, especially those that traffickers can easily afford, trivialize the seriousness of their crimes and undermine efforts to curb drug-related offenses. This leniency has transformed the judicial system into an ineffective deterrent, allowing drug barons to repeatedly re-offend without fear of severe repercussions. For hardened criminals, a fine is simply a cost of doing business—a small price to pay compared to the billions they stand to gain.
The NDLEA, under the leadership of Brigadier General Buba Marwa (Retd), has intensified its efforts to combat drug trafficking, leading to numerous high-profile arrests and substantial drug seizures. These efforts highlight the agency’s commitment to ridding the nation of this scourge. However, the impact of these strides is significantly diminished when courts hand down lenient sentences, often in the form of fines that drug barons can easily pay from their illicit gains. For these traffickers, a fine is merely a slap on the wrist—an inconsequential fee in the face of their colossal profits.
In July 2024, a Federal High Court in Lagos sentenced an alleged notorious drug dealer to a paltry fine instead of a long-term prison sentence. This decision came despite overwhelming evidence presented by the NDLEA, including the seizure of narcotics worth millions of naira. Such outcomes send a disheartening message not only to law enforcement but also to the public: that drug trafficking, one of the most destructive crimes in the country, is not met with the severe punishment it warrants. Judicial leniency not only emboldens traffickers but perpetuates the vicious cycle of crime and addiction that is tearing communities apart.
Judges must recognize the gravity of these crimes and the harm they inflict on society. Drug trafficking not only fuels addiction but also contributes to widespread violence, corruption, and societal decay. To effectively address this menace, the judiciary must shift towards imposing harsher penalties that reflect the severity of the offense. Stiffer prison sentences without the option of fines would send a clear message that drug trafficking will not be tolerated and that the consequences of involvement are severe.
While the death penalty is not advocated, imposing significant prison terms and stringent conditions within correctional facilities can serve as effective deterrents. Long-term incarceration, alongside the confiscation of all assets linked to the crime, can cripple the financial base of these cartels, reducing their ability to operate. Judges must be encouraged to exercise the full extent of the law in sentencing offenders, thereby making drug trafficking an unattractive proposition due to the risk of severe and inescapable punishment.
To support the judiciary in this crucial fight, the National Assembly must act swiftly to amend the NDLEA Act and remove provisions that allow for the option of fines. The current legal framework is outdated and ill-suited to handle the complexities of modern drug trafficking, where cartels are sophisticated, well-funded, and relentless. By amending the law, the National Assembly would empower judges to hand down tougher sentences, ensuring that penalties align with the gravity of the crime.
The proposed amendments should focus on increasing mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking offenses, eliminating fine options, and ensuring that drug barons face substantial prison terms upon conviction. Additionally, the law should provide for the forfeiture of all proceeds derived from drug trafficking, thereby dismantling the financial networks that sustain these criminal enterprises. Importantly, the reforms should emphasize the need for judicial consistency in sentencing, ensuring that traffickers cannot evade justice through legal loopholes or leniency.
Furthermore, these amendments should address the rehabilitation of offenders within the prison system to reduce recidivism. While harsh sentences are necessary to deter and punish, there should also be a structured approach to rehabilitate offenders who demonstrate genuine remorse and a willingness to reform. This holistic approach would ensure that, upon release, former traffickers do not immediately return to their old ways but are instead reintegrated into society with the skills and support needed to lead crime-free lives.
Judges hold a pivotal role in the fight against drug trafficking, and with that role comes great responsibility. Judicial discretion must be exercised with the public’s safety and the justice system’s integrity in mind. When judges opt for lenient sentences, particularly those involving fines, they inadvertently signal to traffickers that their actions are not taken seriously. This not only undermines the efforts of law enforcement agencies like the NDLEA but also erodes public trust in the judicial system.
There is an urgent need for judicial training and sensitization on the implications of lenient sentencing for drug-related offenses. Judges must be equipped with the knowledge and awareness of the broader impacts of their decisions on society. By appreciating the full extent of the harm caused by drug trafficking, judges can better align their sentencing decisions with the need to protect the public and deter future crimes.
Additionally, the NDLEA must be empowered with the resources and tools needed to pursue drug traffickers relentlessly. Improved funding, advanced training, and enhanced technology will enable the agency to carry out its mandate more effectively. Equally important is the need for stronger collaboration with international partners to track and intercept drugs before they reach Nigerian shores.
Public awareness campaigns should be intensified to educate citizens about the dangers of drug abuse and trafficking. The NDLEA, in partnership with civil society organizations, religious bodies, and the media, must launch targeted initiatives aimed at dissuading youth from drug-related activities. These campaigns should emphasize that drug trafficking is not a victimless crime—it destroys lives, fuels violence, and threatens the future of the nation.
Moreover, accountability mechanisms should be put in place to review sentencing patterns and ensure that judges are upholding the principles of justice in their rulings. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on the perception that courts are committed to maintaining law and order and are not swayed by the financial capabilities of offenders.
Drug barons do not need fines—they need sentences that reflect the enormity of their crimes and the devastating impact on society. The current practice of imposing fines on convicted traffickers has proven to be ineffective, allowing offenders to continue their criminal enterprises with minimal disruption. Judges must adopt harsher sentencing measures, and the National Assembly must expedite amendments to the NDLEA Act to remove options for leniency that perpetuate cycles of reoffending.
By closing legal loopholes, imposing severe prison terms, and ensuring that drug barons face uncompromising justice, Nigeria can make significant strides in its fight against drug trafficking. This battle is not just about punishing offenders but about protecting society from the corrosive effects of drug-related crime. The judiciary and legislature must work together to uphold the rule of law and ensure that those who profit from the misery of others are held accountable to the fullest extent. We await the speedy but most articulate amendments of the NDLEA Act that should infuse the harshest genre of judicial reprimand and sanctions such as life time or very lengthy of say 20 years imprisonment with no options of fines whatsoever.
Emmanuel Onwubiko is head of the HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA and was NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF NIGERIA
