By Okechukwu Nwanguma
A woman is taken from an overnight prayer gathering in Aba. Her family searches security facilities without finding her. Months pass before they learn that she is in detention in Abuja. Later, they receive information that she has been convicted of harbouring a terrorist and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment – reportedly without a lawyer at the criminal trial.
This is the account presented to RULAAC by the daughter of Mrs Esther Okwudili Egbom.
It raises a question that should concern every Nigerian: what makes a conviction reliable when the journey to the courtroom is marked by prolonged isolation, disputed legal access and allegations of pressure to admit guilt?
A conviction must rest on a lawful process. Where a guilty plea has been forced, or fundamental trial safeguards have been denied, the resulting conviction is open to challenge. The seriousness of a terrorism allegation makes scrutiny more urgent.
According to her daughter, Chiamaka Happiness Kelvin, Mrs Egbom founded God’s Solution Bible Ministry in Aba. During an overnight prayer programme in February 2025, personnel identified by the family as DSS operatives allegedly entered the premises, assaulted worshippers and seized phones.
The officers were reportedly searching for a man who escaped. They allegedly took Mrs Egbom, as the owner of the ministry, and the man’s girlfriend.
That account requires investigation. It also requires prosecutors to answer a precise question: what individual conduct by Mrs Egbom constituted an offence?
Ownership of premises does not, by itself, establish knowing participation in terrorism. Nor does another person’s presence at a prayer gathering establish that the ministry’s proprietor knew of criminal activity.
Section 14 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 addresses knowing harbouring, concealment or interference with the arrest of persons falling within specified categories. The prosecution must establish the conduct and knowledge required by the provision. Knowledge may be inferred from evidence, but it cannot simply be assumed from religious association or ownership of premises.
If the family’s account is correct that Mrs Egbom was taken because the person being sought escaped, the prohibition of substitute arrest becomes directly relevant. Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act prohibits arresting a person in place of a suspect. It does not immunise relatives or associates from investigation for their own conduct; it prohibits using them as substitutes.
There is also a discrepancy that responsible advocacy must confront. Section 14 prescribes imprisonment for at least 20 years, while the family reports a five-year sentence. That difference does not establish Mrs Egbom’s guilt or innocence. It means we must obtain the actual charge, statutory provision, plea proceedings and judgment before conclusively identifying the legal basis of the conviction.
The uncertainty strengthens the demand for disclosure. A family should not have to reconstruct a criminal prosecution through fragments of information.
Her daughter reports that Mrs Egbom later telephoned to say she had been convicted without a lawyer. An advocate’s account additionally alleges a forced guilty plea. These allegations require an examination of the record and a confidential interview with Mrs Egbom.
But they cannot responsibly be dismissed by saying that she pleaded guilty.
A valid guilty plea has legal consequences. It can permit conviction without a contested trial. That is precisely why the court must establish what the defendant understands and admits.
Section 274 of the ACJA requires the court to record the plea, hear the prosecution’s facts and ascertain whether the defendant admits those facts and the essential elements of the offence. Merely recording the words “guilty” does not answer those questions.
READ ALSO: Court refused KC Luxury bail, orders accelerated hearing
In Ibramhim v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016), the Court of Appeal explained that the court must be satisfied that the accused understands the charge, intends to admit the offence and admits facts capable of sustaining it. These safeguards protect against convictions based on misunderstanding or an admission that does not actually establish the crime charged.
A person who says, “He attended my church, but I did not know of any criminal activity,” has not necessarily admitted knowing harbouring. The court must examine the admission against the offence, rather than convert an explanation into guilt.
The same scrutiny is needed where a detainee alleges being told that pleading guilty is the only way to leave a security facility, avoid further abuse or receive a promised release.
A plea extracted through threats, torture or deception cannot be treated as a freely informed admission. The courtroom must provide an effective opportunity to disclose coercion, with protection against retaliation.
Independent legal assistance is crucial to that opportunity. A lawyer must be able to consult privately, explain the charge and consequences of a plea, examine the prosecution’s case and raise allegations of abuse.
The issue is effective independence in the particular case. A lawyer’s employment by a public legal-aid institution does not, by itself, establish a compromised defence. Equally, the appearance of a lawyer’s name on a record does not prove that meaningful advice or representation occurred.
Legal precision also matters when discussing invalidity. Section 36 protects the accused’s opportunity to understand the accusation, prepare a defence and defend personally or through counsel. Absence of counsel is therefore not automatically fatal in every criminal proceeding. A genuine election to represent oneself must be distinguished from exclusion from legal assistance.
Similarly, failure to inform a family about proceedings can be deeply troubling evidence of isolation. It does not, standing alone, automatically invalidate every conviction of an adult defendant. The decisive inquiry concerns the defendant’s rights and the legality of the proceedings.
Where fundamental defects are established, however, nullity is a real legal consequence. In Torri v National Park Service of Nigeria (2008), the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the consequences of non-compliance with mandatory arraignment requirements. A defective foundation can invalidate the trial, conviction and sentence.
For Mrs Egbom, the responsible conclusion is that the allegations disclose serious grounds for urgent judicial examination. We should not announce that a judgment we have not obtained has already been set aside. We should insist that any conviction founded on an involuntary plea or denial of fundamental trial rights be challenged promptly and overturned where the defects are established.
A retrial is not an automatic cure. Its availability and fairness must be determined through the appropriate legal process, considering the circumstances and the evidence.
READ ALSO: EFCC witness: Arik Air owed no debt to Union Bank, Receivership was fraudulent
Other accounts received by the Southeast Human Rights Bureau reinforce the urgency.
An advocate reports that Abel Onyedikachi Ugwuoke received a life sentence without legal representation. His aunt describes a prolonged family search and disturbing reports about his health.
The family of Ezugwu Paul Ejike reports disappearance following a seizure in December 2024. An advocate subsequently reported a 40-year sentence under variations of his name. Identity and court records must be reconciled.
Samuel Azolibe Onu is reported to have received a 20-year sentence following an allegedly forced plea. A transmitted account in the name of Chidiebere Christian Ugwu alleges that he resisted instructions to plead guilty. An advocate alleges that Ozioma Elizabeth Onyeaka was returned to Wawa – amilitary facility in Niger State, after refusing to plead guilty.
These accounts are not interchangeable, and their similarities do not prove every allegation. They identify specific people whose custody and proceedings require independent scrutiny.
The Attorney-General should secure the relevant records, facilitate independent representation and review the prosecution’s position in each case. The courts should examine properly presented challenges promptly. The Nigerian Bar Association should help ensure that lack of resources does not prevent access to competent defence and appellate counsel.
Investigators must separately examine alleged torture, substitute arrests, concealment of custody and non-compliance with production orders. A later conviction does not answer whether earlier detention and treatment were lawful.
Mrs Egbom deserves a process in which her own account can be heard, the evidence examined and the reported conviction tested against the law.
Nigeria’s response to terrorism must produce judgments that withstand scrutiny. Whenever a guilty plea emerges from alleged coercion and isolation, the duty of the justice system is to investigate how it was obtained and whether it can lawfully sustain a conviction.
Okechukwu Nwanguma is Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC).
