The Lagos State Government recently announced the arrest, prosecution, and sentencing to three months’ imprisonment of 26 street-connected persons described as Omotaku. In addition, a further 115 individuals engaged in begging were reportedly arrested.
At first glance, these actions may appear to reflect a conventional law-and-order response to urban disorder. However, when examined against the realities of Nigeria’s correctional system, this approach raises serious concerns.
Nigeria’s correctional facilities are already critically overstretched, largely due to the persistent overuse of pre-trial detention and carceral measures for minor offences. Empirical data consistently show that over two-thirds of persons in custody are awaiting trial, many for minor, non-violent offences. This crisis is driven by poverty, weak access to legal representation, and chronic procedural delays within the criminal justice process.
Introducing additional low-risk, indigent individuals into this system—particularly those whose conduct is rooted in homelessness, mental illness, or economic exclusion—will further exacerbate congestion without delivering any meaningful public safety benefits.
From an operational standpoint, each additional remandee imposes tangible costs on the Nigerian Correctional Service, including transportation, feeding, medical care, and court production. These obligations are absorbed by a system already forced, in the words of correctional authorities themselves, to “contain rather than reform.” The cumulative effect is a vicious cycle in which correctional centres become repositories for unresolved social problems that the criminal justice system is structurally ill-equipped to address.
Poverty as a Proxy Offence
Begging, street-connected living, and informal survival economies are not inherently criminal behaviours. Rather, they are manifestations of structural inequality, unemployment, mental health gaps, and failures in urban housing and social protection systems.
Studies of Nigeria’s custodial population demonstrate that a substantial proportion of pre-trial detainees are held for minor, non-violent offences—often for periods exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed by law. In such circumstances, incarceration serves neither a deterrent nor a rehabilitative function. Instead, it entrenches marginalisation and deepens the very conditions that bring individuals into conflict with the law.
Beyond Incarceration: Viable and Lawful Alternatives
Nigeria’s legal framework already provides for non-custodial and diversionary responses to minor offences, yet these options remain significantly underutilised.
1. Community Service and Non-Custodial Sentences
Both the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and Lagos State criminal laws authorise community service, restitution, suspended sentences, and other non-custodial measures. These sanctions preserve public order while avoiding the social and fiscal costs of imprisonment.
2. Diversion and Social Welfare Pathways
It must be recognised, at the institutional level, that criminal courts are poorly suited to resolving issues around socio-economic deprivation. Thus, they should be used only as a final resort in cases where other measures have failed. Street-connected persons and individuals engaged in begging should be directed toward social welfare interventions, including housing support, mental health services, vocational training, and rehabilitation programmes.
3. Restorative and Problem-Solving Justice Models
Justice-sector stakeholder dialogues in recent years have repeatedly emphasised the need for people-centred justice. This requires an integrative approach that seeks to repair harm rather than simply punish offenders. This approach has been proven, from global examples, to reduce recidivism and promote successful reintegration.
4. Early Legal Intervention and Duty Solicitor Schemes
Where arrests occur, immediate access to legal advice is critical. Evidence from legal aid and clearing-house models demonstrates that early representation significantly reduces unnecessary remand and prolonged pre-trial detention for indigent suspects.
Conclusion: Order Must Not Come at the Cost of Justice
Urban management and public order are legitimate state objectives. However, enforcement strategies that rely primarily on incarceration—particularly for poverty-driven conduct—merely relocate social failures into correctional institutions already at breaking point.
The sustainable path forward lies not in expanding the net of incarceration, but in fully deploying the non-custodial, restorative, and welfare-oriented mechanisms that Nigeria’s laws already provide. Anything less risks deepening a correctional crisis that the system can no longer absorb.
