POLICY PROPOSAL: A Framework for Establishing A Prosecution Investigator Departments (PID) To Strengthen Criminal Justice Delivery In Nigerian States: A Model for Criminal Justice Reform

1.0 ABSTRACT

This article presents a well-researched policy proposal grounded in direct observation with deep thinking and in-hand experience of the author who has observed in person the structural, procedural and evidentiary gaps in criminal prosecution of cases across Nigeria.

The author has devised an elaborate yet adaptable and an easy to implement procedural qualities and effectiveness in the space of prosecution of cases in Nigeria and to strengthen Criminal Justice delivery and reforms across the Federation. Nigeria, as constitutionally established under Section 2(2) 1919 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; which declare Nigeria a Federation consisting of states and a Federal Capital Territory.

In furtherance, under Section 3 of the Constitution spelt out all the states of the Federation. Pursuant to the above provision, it is important to say Nigeria is relatively and a documented large country with a large population of over 200 million people, thus, it is unarguably conclusive to pinpoint the needed reform to gauge the best possible practice and for the efficacy and delivery of justice across the country with a wide arrays of expansive mobility and diverse resources. Accordingly, under Section 14(1) of the Constitution explicitly declare that the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the principles of “democracy and social justice”.

Therefore, by adopting, implementing and establishing the core propose resolution of the author, the PID framework across Nigerian states will not only improve justice delivery with ‘case backlog reduction’ but will provide an essential and institutional avenue for international and local investors to have a deep and unchallenged or provocative or inconclusive excuse in investing in our dear country, while ensuring a better yet friendly climate environment for her citizen and/or aliens in the country.

A nation with a solid and proactive justice system delivery will for time immemorial be a beacon of projective and progressive course reliance and build a wider opportunities for her emerging and outgrowing population and possible development (Faloye Vincent Adetomide, 2026).

Introduction

The author’s deep resolve and believe that the Prosecution Service across the federation deserve to be reform. In this article the author have compiled detailed suggestions and a better recommended approach to how the Prosecution service should operate in the Criminal Litigation Department.

The author who is rooted in criminal profiling, and investigation, and have a very keen and elaborate interest in the Criminal Justice System and the rule of law.

However, it is pertinent to say, as regarding the author’s experience with prosecutors, while also accompanying them to courts during his SIWES programme.

The author have examined, decoded, cracked, and try to understand the operation of the Prosecution service, when put in a reality checkmate. As he observes structural and procedural gaps that adversely affect prosecutorial effectiveness. 

Nevertheless, the prosecutors need a better helping hand like their counterpart in most advance jurisdiction outside Nigeria, who should mostly be referred to as “Prosecution Investigators (PI)”.

As their work and duties lies in many notable important roles in  the prosecution of crimes and the discharge of justice for a better yet safer environment for all, while also assuring prospective and interested investors to our country never to find any inconsiderate excuse or which might deem their investment a breach of hope and safer society.  

A Reference Of Investigative And Prosecution Flaws

In such instance, on one occasion of the author’s voyage with a prosecutor to court. The author had the opportunity to excellently read through the legal brief charge and argument of the prosecution on why the four individuals were charged with three counts of conspiracy, forgery, and fraud in court. However, looking at the “Statement of Offence and Particulars of Offence” through the “Proof of Evidence and List of Exhibits” tender by the prosecution. From a criminological and investigative perspective, the author validates that the list of Proof of Evidence and list of Exhibits were not sufficient enough or an added advantage in the prosecution of the offence committed by the defendants to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  

The Following excerpt derives from the brief charge; 

Proof of Evidence:

• The Victim statement (the employer of the bar lounges the defendants work). 

• The IPO statements. 

• The Defendants Statement. 

• Statement of a person. 

All serving as Prosecutor Witness (PW). 

List of Exhibits:

• Statement of the Victim. 

• IPO statements. 

• A subpoena. 

• Two other people’s statement. 

All these were carefully read and reviewed and analyze by the author and on such account, the IPO mention that an ‘independent auditor’ was employed, but this was not stated in the List of Exhibits or Proof of Evidence (as PW). Thus, there is indeed a flaw in such case.

To further buttress this, as the four defendants were charged with three (3) counts of conspiracy, forgery, and fraud contrary to Section 422, 463 and 421 respectively of the Criminal Code Act. The Exhibit did not account for the documentary and physical evidence concerning this case.

In one instance of the charge of forgery,  the prosecution mention that the victim stated that the defendants forged a fake “POS” receipt which fall under a  documentary evidence in reference to Section 86(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. A substantive specialized statute that recognize which type of evidence to be presented or tender in court and for the inspection of the court.

As this “Forged POS receipt” is a relevant piece of evidence to the Fact in issue, Section 1 of the Evidence Act, 2011 validate this. However, the prosecution has failed to list this as part of Exhibit needed to prove their case. And on the other hand, in case of fraud, the victim account statement from the date or years he claims to have been defrauded was not also inclusive, neither do they account for the defendant’s bank statement from such date till date of arrest. 

As the author validates that the Exhibits should take into a more recognize approach to quell the suspicion on a reasonable ground, and so to secure a conviction. As it is said, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Hence, the “Actus Reus and Mens Rea” of this alleged crime is said to have been clogged, hence, in furtherance, the prosecution had not proved the substance of it case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In like manners, the Actus Reus was not proved, while the Mens Rea was the ‘Intent to defraud’ their employer, which also accounts their motive to be of monetary gain. A criminal liability to a crime must explicitly compliment both the Actus Reus and Mens Rea, thus, ensuring a balance of proving the motive of the said crime. 

Recommeded Resolution To Prove The Actus Reus

Therefore, after careful independent review and analysis of such case, the substance of the case should rely heavily on  evidence as provided under the Evidence Act, 2011, not merely a hearsay, Section 38 of the Evidence Act 2011 explicitly  define this. And such evidence may include; 

• Account statement of the Employer. 

• Account statement of all the four defendants (including banks of which their names and identity are linked to).

• The evidence of the fake receipt said to have been forged.

• Witnesses; such as customers of the bar lounge who can testify of such instance (if applicable).

• The auditor’s testimony (who shall testify of his or her findings during the audit). 

• Evidence of conspiracy among the defendants, which may include messages and chats etc.

If when applied, will build a legally founded and sound case and conviction secure without flaws. Consequently, this is where “Prosecution Investigator (PI)” comes in. As you have known, the Police investigation always come with flaws and often procedurally incomplete and this automatically build a clear problematic issue for the prosecutors, and may induce a poor prosecutorial exercise and justice may either be denied or delay, with no substantive proof of evidence and clear clarification therein. 

Therefore, it is believed and recommended like manners that the prosecution should be guided and assisted by an investigator also known as “Prosecution Investigator (PI)” in the discharge of their prosecutorial duties and pursuance of justice across the state. Of course, this is not in any way trying to undermine or made useless of the Police investigation or insolate or take over their service in the administration of justice in the state or elsewhere, but to ensure a collective, basic and thorough review and preparation of case before appearing in court or filling charges.

Comparative Analysis, Functions And Benefits 

Firstly, subject to the provision of the constitution, Section 211(3),”the Attorney-General of a state shall  have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice, and the need to prevent abuse of legal process”. Thus, by taking into consideration and deliberate on the author’s suggestion and recommendation contained in this article. Secondly, the author shall draw different comparison of countries which practice the ‘in-house prosecution investigator’.

International Best Practice

Here are countries within Africa and abroad that practice the In-house model of the proposed Prosecution Investigator, with various specialized functions and importance, who are responsible to the Director of Public Prosecution while working directly with prosecutors. In several advanced jurisdictions that operate a highly effective hybrid adopted models, where prosecutors direct or work alongside dedicated investigator. This comparative international best practice includes: 

(i) South Africa: where the prosecutor receives cases from the police, the Case goes through a proper thorough prosecutorial screening by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Afterward, the prosecution if after careful review,  they find any evidentiary lapse or gaps, the case will be sent or referred to the Investigating Directorate (ID) for further  investigation. They correct defects in the police file. As they gather missing evidence by doing a thorough follow-up investigation to build the case stronger. As they prepare the case to prosecutorial standard. Hence, the prosecutor receives the final findings and decides whether to charge or drop the case. The case proceeds to court properly armed.

(ii) South Korea: In South Korean’s Criminal Justice System, the prosecution offices have ‘investigators, case analyst, forensic, and financial experts and digital evidence specialist’. For instance, the prosecution service receives case file from the police after their initial investigation, take statements and gather initial evidence. Strictly note, the police investigations are not final. As the prosecutors have constitutional and statutory authority and provision to:

• Review police investigations. 

• Order further investigation. 

• Reject weak case files or warrant request. 

• Demand additional evidence. 

• Re-interview witnesses and even the defendant. 

• Request forensic and financial analysis etc. 

Therefore, this is where prosecution investigator and case analysts come in to fill the void. As this special experts or investigators: 

• Are employed by or attached to the prosecution. 

• Work under prosecutorial supervision. 

• Review Police files line by line, through and through. 

• Identify inconsistencies. 

• Trace financial records. 

• Test evidence credibility. 

• Prepare exhibits and review before trial. 

• Aid in the presentation of evidence (Exhibits) in court etc. 

Conclusively, this ensures that prosecutions of cases are evidence-driven rather than narrative-based; they are part adversarial base model which is strictly recommended for Ondo state prosecutorial operations. 

(iii) United State (the “State of Texas” as a case study): In Texas each elected District Attorney (DA) who is the Chief Prosecutor for a county; operates an office that typically includes a dedicated division of “District Attorney Investigators” or “Criminal Investigators”. 

• Legal Basis & Status: These investigators are often sworn peace officers (according to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) Art 2.12), which describe investigators of the district attorney as ‘Peace Officer’ under Section 5, of the (CCP). 

“The following are peace officers: Investigators of the district attorneys’, Criminal district attorneys’ and county attorneys’ offices”

Granted with full Law Enforcement powers, but they are direct employees of the District Attorney’s office, not the Police Department. As they work under the direct supervision and authority of the Prosecuting Attorneys. 

• Core Functions: 

(a) Case File Evaluation & Strengthening: Before charges are filed, the DA investigators review Police submissions.  They conduct follow-up interviews, locate additional witnesses, and collect supplemental evidence to ensure the case meets the prosecutorial standard of “Probable Cause” for indictment and trial ready.  

(b) Carryout Specialized & Complex Investigations: They frequently take the lead on investigations involving public corruption, official misconduct, organized crime, complex financial fraud, and cybercrime. This which rightfully employ the service and expertise of prosecution investigator, cybercrime experts, and financial forensic expert etc. can be applicable across the federation for criminal justice reform. 

(c) Victim & Witness Liaison: They maintain close contact with victims and key witnesses, ensuring their cooperation and preparing them for trial, which drastically reduces ‘witness fatigue’ and case attrition. 

(d) Investigation of Law Enforcement: crucially, DA investigators often handle case involving allegations against Police officers, ensuring independent scrutiny and maintaining public trust. A special unit within the ministry of justice should be dedicated for this, handed and investigated by the prosecution investigator and a prosecutor attached to such case.  

Proposed Functions Of A Prosecution Investigator In Nigeria: 

A Prosecutor Investigator (PI) would be a legally trained or highly skilled investigative officer directly accountable to the DPP. Their core functions would be: 

1. Pre-Charge Case Review and Strengthening: The Prosecution Investigator shall review Police case files before  charges are filed, identifying evidential gaps, recommending specific lines of further inquiry, and ensuring the  disclosed evidence met the threshold for a Prima Face case. 

2. Trial Evidence Management: The Prosecution Investigator (PI) who is to work with the assigned Prosecutor shall; 

• Ensure all exhibits in the Proof of Evidence are properly obtained, documented, and admissible and legally collected. 

• Locate and interview supplementary witnesses.  

• Secure expert witnesses and manage their reports and findings. 

• Prepare demonstrative evidence for trial (such as timeline, flow charts, for complex fraud or cases where applicable). 

3. Investigation of Law Enforcement: As mention earlier, a specialize PID within the MOJ should be dedicated for  investigating Police brutality, abuse, torture (which is against the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, unlawful arrest, and  other arbitrary abuse of power and violation of human right by the Police and other Law enforcement agencies  operating within the states of the federation, shall be handle by the Prosecution Investigator Department (PID), which directly  comes from victim of Police brutality, NGO’s, public petitions, and or under the Attorney-General direction.  Which is in line with “Section 211, subsection (1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN); granting the Attorney-General of a state, the power to institute and undertake criminal proceedings for  offences under state law in any court of law in Nigeria other than a court-martial…”. 

4. Compliance and Procedure: To guarantee that investigations comply with the ACJA and Evidence Act, while safeguarding evidence from being tampered with or excluded on procedural grounds. 

5. Spearheading Specialized Investigations: A Prosecutor Investigator (PI) is to lead or co-lead investigations in specialized, complex areas, such as cybercrime, financial fraud, organized crime, and corruption, where traditional Police investigation may lack technical or legal specificity.  

6. Investigating case of unlawful and/or arbitrary arrest: The Prosecution Investigator shall receive complaint of unlawful or arbitrary arrest and investigate into the allege complaint and the prosecution shall charge the officer to court if found culpable and/or refer such case to the Police Service Commission for further disciplinary action.

7. Witness/Victim Liaison: A Prosecution Investigator shall serve as the primary, trusted point of contact for vulnerable witnesses, while ensuring their protection and readiness for trial. 

Direct Benefits To The Justice System In Ondo State: 

a. Increase conviction rates: A stronger, Prosecution-guided investigations lead to more robust cases that survive no-case submissions and secure right convictions. 

b. Reduced Case Attrition: Fewer cases will be struck out or result in acquittals due to poor investigation or  evidence handling. 

c. Enhance Professionalism: Creates a career path for hybrid legal-investigative professionals who are well versed and understand the statutory provision of the ACJA and Evidence Act and foster a culture of excellence and justice driven society. Hence, such legal-investigative professionals may include criminal investigators, criminologist, cybercrime experts, Digital forensic experts, forensic expert (general & specialized) etc. 

d. Faster Trial Cycles: A well-prepared files from day one reduces unnecessary adjournment caused by missing evidence and or witnesses. 

e. Accountability and oversight: Provide a direct mechanism for the Ministry to ensure investigative quality, aligning Police work with prosecutorial needs. 

Suggestions And Recommendations For Implementation (The “how”)

The “HOW”:  

1) Pilot unit: The state ministry of justice shall establish a pilot unit within the DPP’s office, initially staffed by a few experienced, evidence-driven teams, experts in criminology, criminal justice, forensic analyst, crime investigation, and seasoned in general Criminal Law (the Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code Act), and other specialized statute such as the ACJA, Evidence Act, the Firearm Act, etc. and other enabling statute like the Police Act. They are paired with a Senior Prosecutor while also working closely with other prosecutors in the ministry and elsewhere. Conclusively, this unit or department may focus on Homicide cases, armed robbery, Assault cases, Organized crime, Investigation of law enforcement and fraud, with time gradually deploy investigators to other prosecution units. 

2) Legal Framework: Drafting a ‘Practice Direction’ or an Amendment to the state’s Administration of Criminal Justice law formally recognizing and empowering the role of the Prosecution Investigator or Passing a PID Establishment Bill.  However, both the Practice Direction and an Amendment to the state’s ACJA is an essential part and never to ignore aspect in this proposal to effect the reform. The Former issued by the Chief Judge of the state, while the later amended by an Act of the House of Assembly or the NASS, which grant the Prosecution Investigators (PI) the power to conduct “supplementary investigations” and other procedural functions.  

3) Training & capacity building: Partnering with international bodies (e.g. UNODC) or jurisdictions mention  in the comparative analysis included in this letter, while collaborating for knowledge exchange and  specialized training in financial and digital evidence investigation and handling. 

4) Dual-report system: recommend that federal agencies (like Police, NSCDC, NDLEA etc.) be legally  mandated to provide the Prosecution Investigator Department (PID) with a duplicate case file within  ‘48hours’ of any arrests for a state offence, ensuring that the “bridge” is active from the start. 

5) Evidence Custody Protocol: In the case of requesting of evidence from the police, and the police so complies and evidence is transported to the PID (ensuring chain of custody is strictly adhere to). The Ministry shall have a special unit, where evidence will be packed, kept, and locked. And accessed only by authorized Prosecution Investigator (PI) not even the Prosecutor will have access until during the trial for presentation or to be tendered in court. And also, CCTV camera coverage shall be installed in this room, and logging of every entry and exit. And most importantly, when the case is over in court, the Prosecution Investigator shall transfer the evidence back to the police, where the police keep the evidence back to their “Evidence room”.  This is in line with the purpose of preserving evidentiary integrity and ensuring fair trial as provided in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 

Operational Recommendations (The Bridge Function): 

i. Joint case teams: propose that every high value criminal case be assigned a case team consisting of one state counsel (prosecutor) and one Prosecution Investigator (PI). The investigator shall be responsible for “cleaning” the file before the lawyer files charges. 

ii. Pre-filing certification: recommend a “Certificate of Evidential Readiness”. On no account should  a charge be filed by the DPP unless the Prosecution Investigator (PI) certifies that all essential  witnesses are tracked, interviews done including from the defendants and victim (if applicable),  and physical exhibits are properly and legally verified and sound before filing. 

iii. Liaison Officers: Assign dedicated PID officers as inter-agency liaisons specifically for non-police security agencies (e.g. Amotekun, NSCDC etc.) to standardize evidence collection across different organizations.  

iv. Power to Request and Execute a search and seizure warrant: The proposed PID shall be vested with the power to request and effect or execute a search and seizure warrant on a probable ground excluding arrest, which is the constitutional and statutory power of the Police (a police officer having the power to effect an arrest) provided for under Section 32(1) of the Police Act 2020 and Section 4 of the ACJA 2015.  

v. Power to Request Arrest: In the discharge of their duties, the PID shall have the power to request arrest from the Police, subject to a reasonable ground for such request directly in writing to the Commissioner of Police of the state, who shall retain operational command over the arrest function. Thus, the use of coercive force stays with the police who execute all arrest with or without warrant, whereas maintaining their constitutional and statutory roles in the administration of Criminal Justice across the states. 

vi. Power to Request Evidence: Subject to the power of the Attorney-General of a state (Ondo State as a case study) granted under Section 95(3) of the ACJLs of Ondo state; 

“The Attorney-General of Ondo State may request from the police or any other agency for the case file in any matter in respect of any offence created by Ondo State House of Assembly as the case may be, and the police or such other agency shall forthwith send such case file as requested.” 

The PID shall have the delegated power to formally request for all Evidence relating to the alleged offence, and whose arrest which has been executed by the police, and the police shall so complies and provide such evidence to the investigator, who in turn shall review and analyze such evidence and determine if it is sufficient enough to press charge against the suspect, and if not, the Prosecution Investigator shall carryout its own supplementary investigation. 

“Arrest triggers prosecutorial review, not automatic prosecution”. 

Note: In the case of requesting of evidence from the police, and the police so complies and evidence is transported to the PID (ensuring chain of custody is strictly adhere to). The Ministry shall have a special unit, where evidence will be packed, kept, and locked. And accessed only by authorized Prosecution Investigator (PI) not even the Prosecutor will have access until during the trial for presentation or to be tendered in court. And also, CCTV camera coverage shall be installed in this room, and logging of every entry and exit. And most importantly, when the case is over in court, the Prosecution Investigator shall transfer the evidence back to the police, where the police keep the evidence back to their “Evidence room”. This is in line with the purpose of preserving evidentiary integrity and ensuring fair trial as provided in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 

Investigative And Oversight Function; (Granting The Power To Investigate Law Enforcement): 

Subject to the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, granted the Attorney-General of a state the power to initiate criminal proceedings on any person which include the Police and any other Federal agency in the state:

I. Oversight of Agencies: unlike traditional police investigators who focus on civilian crimes, the PID is designed to investigate personnel from the NPF, NSCDC, Amotekun corps, and other security and paramilitary agencies. 

II. Corruption and Misconduct: Its primary mandate shall also involves investigating “Police  brutality”, “obstruction of justice”, “Human right Violation”, “Extra-judicial killing”, and  “corruption” including “extortion” within these agencies, thus, ensuring that the prosecution (the  DPP) does not have to rely on the police to investigate the police. 

III. Bridging the gap: This department shall act as a final “verifier” of evidence with the power to reinvestigate or independently verify findings from other security agencies before a case is filed in court.  

Conclusion 

The establishment of a PID with this vigorous oversight mandate is not an affront to or against the operation and constitutional mandate of the law enforcement but a beacon of hope and pursuance of Justice to the people the law serve. And on the contrary, it shall pave the way and structure a better reformative and justice driven commitment across Nigerian states and possibly enhance the wide adaptation across the federation, while taking the lead in weeding off corrupt and violent few who tarnish the ‘badge’, strengthens the rule of law, and secures the  public partnership that is essential for effective policing, adjudicative and confidence in our Criminal Justice System while avoiding a stain on our democracy and social justice. It is believe that if this recommendation and proposal for reform is adopted, deliberated and debated upon; it shall pass the test of time and possibly become the epitome of accountable leadership and justice reform across Nigeria and Africa as a whole. While creating a sane society where every person dreamt of belonging and safeguarded. 

“The pillar of Justice shall refuse to be shaken.”

Thank you all and for your dedicated time going through this proposal and for your possible recommendations to the appropriate legal drafter, policy decision makers, the NASS and States House of Assemblies, the Executive branch (Federal and States), the Judiciary, the NBA, Human right union, Criminal Justice sectors and experts, and the United Nation Justice Sector etc.

References

• The 1919 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
• The Criminal Code Act.
• The Police Act 2020.
• The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
• The Ondo State ACJL 2015.
• The Evidence Act 2011.
• The Anti-Torture Act 2017.
• Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.12.

Glossary of Terms

• ACJA: Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
• ACJL: Administration of Criminal Justice Law
• Actus Reus: The physical element of criminal responsibility. It is also called the “guilty act”.
• PID: Prosecution Investigator Department
• Prima Facie: Often known as evidence at ‘first sight’.
• PI: Prosecution Investigator
• Mens Rea: The mental element of criminal responsibility. It is also called the “guilty mind”.

---

About Author