LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literatures that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The Concept of Prison

The concept of prison has been treated from various perspectives which include structural and functional dimensions. Mccorkle and Korn (1954) described a prison as a physical structure in a geographical location where a number of people living under highly specialized condition, adjust to the alternatives presented to them by the unique kind of social environments. Sykes (1958), Goffman (1961) and Okunola (1986) conceived prison as a place where people are highly secluded from the rest of the world with entirely new order and control. This conceptualizations advanced by scholars are limited towards understanding that, prison is a physical environment and could be described geographically or spatially.

Different from the physical conception, there are other schools of thought that are based on function, framework and label. From the functional perspective, a prison is perceived as a place to punish offenders, where criminals that are removed from the society are dumped to protect the society from further criminal activities. It is a place to reform, and teach offenders to be law abiding and productive after their release. Okunola (1986) and Goffman (1961) defined the concept of prison in various ways. While Goffman (1961) conceptualized total institution as where there is a basic split between large classes of individuals who are restricted contact pattern where social mobility is restricted, Okunola (1986) on the other hand, sees a total institution as a place, (unlike the free environment or the community) that inhabits those who are socially rejected, insane, or mentally retarded. The labeling point of view on the other hand, stressed prison as a place for vagrants who may pose actual danger to social life in the larger society. This model pre-supposes that every person in the prison is a vagrant and irresponsible person. This was the position of Howard (1986) 12 who demonstrated his view with what obtained during the ancient Greek times. With the recent developments, the general conception about the prisons is changing in the mind of some people with reference to the economic idea that people in the prisons are dregs of the society (Yongo, 2010). Imprisonment is most appropriately conceived as a formal perspective of inflicting pain on the individual. This has been an aspect of the traditional criminal justice system in various societies in Nigeria (Obioha, 1995; Obioha 2002).

The Nigeria prison service was established to manage criminals in prison yards. This constitutional function empowers the Nigerian prison services to:

Keep convicted offenders (prisoners) in safe custody.

Keep awaiting trial inmates in custody until law courts ask for their production.

iii. Punish offenders as instructed by the law courts. iv. Reform the convicted prisoners. v. Rehabilitate and re-integrate prisoners who have completed their sentences in the prison (extract from prison training manual (cited in Adetula, 2010).

Philosophy of Punishment

Punishment serves numerous socio-cultural functions. The concept of punishment has been justified on four basic principles or goals. These principles/goals are seen as the basic aims of punishment. Andrew (2008) in reviewing the philosophy of punishment in Nigeria opined that, of all the four goals of punishment which includes retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation, the first three goals are the most focused on in the Nigeria Prison system. An examination of scholars’ views on the above philosophies of punishment will suffice to shed proper light on the concept. Retribution: Ahmed (2009) submits that one of the oldest and most basic justifications for punishment involves the principles of revenge. This equation of punishment, with the gravity 13 of the offence is embedded in the Judeo Christian tradition in the mosaic laws of the old testament in the Holy Bible that emphasize the idea of an eye for an eye. This idea was the classical principle of how justice should be dispensed in democratic society (Alfreton, 2007). While this principle of punishment has been modified in the west as time progressed, Nigeria and other African countries are still using it as the principle guiding their various prison systems (Toluerimo, 2007). Retributive punishment manifests in different shades which includes mandatory sentencing policies and sentencing guidelines systems in the United Sates. Mandatory sentences dictate uniform sanctions for persons who committed a particular types of offence (e.g. enhanced penalties for crimes committed with arms) whereas determinate sentencing guidelines prescribe specific punishments based on the nature of the criminal offense and the extensiveness of the offenders prior criminal record. Consistent with a retributive philosophy, punishment under these sentencing systems focuses primarily on the seriousness and characteristics of the criminal act rather than the offender (Brown, 2004).

Although this philosophy of punishment has been relegated to the background a great deal in western societies, it remains the bane of modern day Nigeria prison system. However, several criticisms have been levied against retribution. E.g., the issue of commensurate desert; is the punishment given to the offender actually commensurate to the offense committed? Another philosophy of punishment is incapacitation. A primary utilitarian purpose for punishment involves various actions designed to decrease the physical capacity of a person to commit criminal or deviant acts. The principle of incapacitation as Ukah (1999) observed, focuses on the elimination of an individual’s opportunity for crime and deviance through different types of physical restraints on their actions. The conditions may be so deplorable that they reduce the offenders’ subsequent desire to engage in misconduct. This philosophy of punishment is aimed at ‘caging’ and keeping the offender away from society so he or she may 14 not be able to have favorable conditions to commit crime. In Western Europe, when incapacitation was still the norm, offenders were banished or transported to distant places so they are unable to commit crimes in the stipulated places (Brown 2007). This approach has been criticized on the grounds that even within the prison walls, there exist some act of criminality. The third in the list of philosophies of punishment is deterrence. The doctrine of deterrence asks a fundamental question about the relationship between sanctions and human behavior. For example: (Is legal and extralegal sanctions effective in reducing deviance and achieving conformity?).

Punishment is said to have a deterrent effect when the fear or actual imposition of punishment leads to conformity. The deterrent value of punishments is directly linked to the characteristics of those punishments. Specially, punishments have the greatest potential to deter misconduct when they are severe, certain and swift in their application. Punishments are also expected to deter would-be offenders. When the type of punishment meted out to offenders is seen by would-be offenders, they advice themselves and desist from going further to commit crimes (Goldman, 1971). This assumption has been critiqued on the basis that despite the punishment being meted on offenders to deter them and would-be offenders, they still indulge in crime because they feel that the highly connected in the society go scot-free when caught. The prison system in Nigerian today is fashioned on the deterrence-like manner. Prisoners or offenders are treated in ways that would make crime seem unattractive for those that are hoping to become criminals later on. (Balogun, 1989). Reformation is the fourth philosophy of punishment. Reformation underlines the basic purpose/principle of punishment. The ultimate goal of reformation is to restore a convicted offender to a constructive place in society through some combination of treatment, education and training. However, the prisons in Nigeria are fashioned to be more punitive than 15 corrective/reformation (Obilade, 2010). The salience of reformation is indicated by the contemporary jargon of correctional facilities, and therapeutic community now used to describe jails, prisons and other institutions of incapacitation. From the foregoing, the philosophy of punishment in Nigeria remains punitive despite the current shift to correction which is only theoretical.

In all civilizations, human societies have had societal codes of conduct whether written or unwritten. These prescribe and regulate behavior in society (Igbo, 2006). Punishment involves the infliction of pain. It is a pain or an unpleasant experience inflicted upon an individual in response to a violation of a rule or law by a person or persons who have lawful authority to do so (Miller, 1996). Two approaches or more appropriately, two school of thought have emerged in explaining the concept and rationale for punishment. While the first group believes that inflicting pain as punishment is fundamentally different from inflicting pain on innocents and therefore is not inherently wrong, the second group believes that punishment is a wrong that can be justified only if it results to a greater good (Miller, 1996). Those who hold the first view do not feel it necessary to justify punishment beyond the fact that the individual deserves it. This, according to Miller et al (1996) is considered a retributive approach. The second approach justifies punishment through the secondary rationales of deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. This second approach, as Durkheim (1951) puts it, is referred to as the utilitarian approach. 20 Retributive rationale for punishment is seen as the first approval to punishment. This approach holds that punishment, strictly defined, is not evil. Retribution as a concept means balancing a wrong through punishment. This differs from revenge in the sense that while revenge is personal and not necessarily proportional to the victims’ injury, retribution is impersonal and balanced (Newman, 1978).

Igbo, (2000) opines that retribution as an approach or an aim of punishment subscribes to the principle that a person guilty of an offence should suffer for it. It holds that a criminal deserves to suffer for his crime. The essential elements in this approach to punishment as outlined by Igbo (2006) are: that the fact that an individual has committed a crime provides enough ground or reason for his punishment. Again, that the pain inflicted on the criminal must be in proportion to the gravity of the offence committed and that punishment is viewed as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end. The utilitarian approach defines punishment as essentially evil and seeks to justify it by the greater benefits that results under this approach, what is good is that which benefits the majority of the people in the society. This means that punishment deters, incapacitates or facilitates rehabilitation, that many (majority of the society), would benefit (Miller, 1996; Averhahn, 1999). Retribution has been the goal of punishment (or imprisonment in Nigeria) from the time of colonialism up till recently when the goal shifted to reformation and rehabilitation (Igbo, 2006). Various methods of punishment have existed over the years. While some have become obsolete due to changing times and laws and increased awareness about human rights, some have become much more entrenched globally.

Corporal punishment is one of the methods of punishment. This involves drawing, quartering, flaying, whipping, beheading, dismembering and numerous other means of torturing to death (Newman, 1978). Fines and dispossession of property also have been common throughout history and are still very much in vogue in current 21 times. Cohen (1955), sees execution, as an economic as well as a corporal punishment, because the person’s estate was forfeited to the state. Of all the forms of punishment outlined above, imprisonment is the most holistic in the sense that it deters, incapacitates, reforms, rehabilitates and reforms the offender. According to Howard (1986), ‘imprisonment attacks the soul as it acts on the heart, the thoughts, the will and the inclinations of the prisoner’. In Nigeria, the origin of imprisonment dates back to remote history (Igbo, 2006). Available records show that various traditional societies in Nigeria had various forms of incarcerating offenders prior to their contact with Europe in the nineteenth century. Igbo (2006) reveals that the prisons introduced by the British in Nigeria was purely for punitive measures, to punish those that refused or resisted them from getting the economic gains they came to the country for. From this time henceforth, this objective of imprisonment was carried over from the colonial era to the post-independence period by Nigerians who took over the reins of power from the colonialists. The challenges of this shift have been very intense.

Prisons as a Correctional Institution

After the American Revolution, Marek (1998) reveals, the ideas of enlightenment gained momentum. With the ideas of Cessera Beccari and Jeremy Bentham and the declaration of independence, a new penal system was developed. As such, reports argued that Americans had to move away from barbarism and punitive means of punishment and embrace a more rational and humanistic approach to punishment. Igbo (2006) opined that the concept of correction, which embodies two key words (with which the concept of correction will be interchangeably used in the work) reformation and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, according to Igbo (2008) gained ascendancy during the course of the 20th century. Up to the present time, the trend all over the world seems to be one of growing emphasis on the reformation-rehabilitation of the criminal offender. Both correctional spokesmen and prison reformers lend their professional voices to the growing call for the idea of rehabilitation and correction rather than punishment as such. Igbo (2006) sees ‘treatment’ as the essential element under the rehabilitative approach to punishment. Vold (1979) viewed rehabilitation as the process of ‘straightening out’ the offender deep with his own personality. He maintained that the rehabilitation activities of the modern prison generally have been of two kinds viz: psychological or psychiatric treatment and educational or vocational treatment. Reformation for Gibbons (1980), centers on education of inmates through which their antisocial attitudes and values are changed into socially acceptable ones. It is a process by which 16 convicts acquire social skills for effective participation in conventional society. A reformatory punishment involves the infliction of pain on a person in order not to commit crime of a particular sort (Amstrong 1978), quoted in Igbo, 2006).

Igbo (2006) argues that reformatory sentences operate through a learning process which makes the criminal aware and appreciative that it is wrong to commit crime. The awareness of the wrongfulness of criminal acts rather than the fear of punishment is the factor that reforms the offender (Igbo, 2006). The court here, Igbo (2006) concludes, awards a sentence with the treatment of the offender in mind rather than his punishment. Further on reformation, Opara (2010) sees reformation as making the offender better by trying to change his deviant behaviors. It means infusing in him the will to refrain from criminal behavior. Article 59 of the United Nations Minimum Standard Rule, for the treatment of offenders, states: To this end (reformation) the institution should seek to utilize all the remedial, educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance which are appropriate and available and should seek to apply them according to the individual treatment needs of the prisoners (United Nations Minimum Standard Rule). The expected reformative and correction facilities or programs in the prisons include: boot camps, private industries in the prisons, tree venture programs (which involves members of the public who own private industries coming to hire prison inmates at their own will), therapy and counseling, educational programs and skill acquisition (Siegel, 1992); though this is not applicable in Nigerian prisons.

Opara (1998) cites seven points as methods to be used to achieve rehabilitation and reformation. These include discipline and disciplinary action, medical treatment, staff attitude, education, industrial training and religious instructions. Osaze (1996) quoted in Ossai (2005) revealed that at present, the Nigerian prison system consists of 144 prison, of mechanized forms, 5 poultry farms, 2 fish farms, 2 training schools, 1 borstal institution and the prison staff college, kakuri with an average monthly prisoner population of 60,000, its staff strength is about 22,000 (including non-uniformed workers). 17 This figure represents the available facilities for rehabilitation and reformation of prisoners in Nigeria. However, the facilities may have increased as Obi (2000) outlined, the current existing reformative and rehabilitative facilities of the Nigerian prisons to include, the inmate Training and Resettlement Project (ITRP), Prisons Adult Remedial Educational Programme, (AREP) this is achieved through collaborating with the National Open University (NOU) as one of the mechanized forms of the NPS. The NPS has industries. Some of which are the various soap making industries, the furniture industry Ilesha, the aluminum industry Potiskum, toilet roll industry and paper drill in Lagos (Orakwe, 2011). Orakwe (2011) also points out that, the prisons have aftercare mechanisms (ACM) in order to take care of the discharged prisoners to avoid their losing the skills they gained in the prisons due to stigmatization and lack of jobs. The NPS uses the ACM to grant the qualified ex-prisoner the needed tools and post-term supervision to ensure that they are settled in those vocations they learned while in custody. Also, aftercare officers are attached to discharged prisoners to ensure that the tools are put to effective use and to provide a coordinate patronage and supervision until the beneficiary is formally on his or her own. Orakwe (2011) however admits that these facilities are inadequate when compared with the number of inmates in our prisons custody. Again the corrective functions of the prisons may remain illusory.

Inmate Rehabilitation Policy

Inmate rehabilitation policy refers to the strategic mobilisation of public resources for the treatment of offenders for the benefit of the offenders and society at large. According to Simon (2009), imprisonment is now being used in the process of solving social problems such as drug addiction, lack of job skills and education, as a means of crime control. The idea of rehabilitation in the correctional homes, in the words of Bentham (1843:226), is generally concerned with how to turn the correctional institutions into ‘a mill for grinding rogues honest and idle men industrious’ so that re-entry of ex-convicts into the larger society becomes mutually beneficial to the society and themselves. Similarly, the popular prison inmate rehabilitation idea is partly based on its potential to promote significant personal changes and strengthen public security (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). The need to treat human beings with dignity and the hope of behavioural rebirth are also some of the driving forces behind inmate rehabilitation. According to Nwolise (2010), correctional homes point toward the establishment and management of penitentiaries, as a form of social clinic where psychologists, medical doctors, social workers, researchers, spiritual workers, and others operate hand in hand with the correctional personnel to achieve the best results of transforming the inmates away from being deviants to being disciplined, productive, useful and patriotic citizens after discharge.

In the words of Dambazau (2007), inmate rehabilitation is a major system designed to mitigate or eliminate the accompanying effects of incarceration, especially those relating to their economic, psychological, social and political changes after discharge. According to section 4 (1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (otherwise known as Mandela Rules, 2015), the major objectives of punishment by incarceration or related systems that impact human liberty and freedom are essential to guide the society against criminality and decrease the possibility of recidivism. These objectives are more probably realised if the duration of incarceration is employed to make sure, to a very large extent, the re-uniting of the accused back to the community after discharge to make it possible for him to leave within the ambit of the law and be socioeconomically relevant. This approach to imprisonment is built on the concept of inmate rehabilitation. Foucault, (1995) narrated the growth of the use of the penitentiaries in the eighteenth century and tagged it the period of ‘The Great Confinement’. He disagrees with Durkheim’s that penitentiaries are means of power relations in society. He maintained that the purpose of imprisonment in contemporary times is to ensure that the cause of anti-social behaviour is identified for corrective purposes with the ultimate goal of promoting obedience. The introduction of experts such as social workers, psychiatrists, and criminologists into the legal process according to Foucault (1995) represents the major significance of such involvement and proliferation of experts. Meanwhile, scholarly attention on the rehabilitation of offenders has continued to produce diverse results. While several writers have voiced a dim hope of correctional activities in the prisons based on the growing number of re-offenders among other factors, arguments against rehabilitation and its programmes, for example, have suffered several attacks over the years.

Martinson (1974), for instance, argues that imprisonment is purely a means of punishment and as such, incapable of rehabilitation of offenders. He identifies the lack of possibility on the part of the inmates to exercise freedom in the selection of the preferred rehabilitation programme and the incompatibility of the prison settings as a learning environment as the major bane of the possibility of functional rehabilitation. Similarly, Pursley (1997:76) also notes that “identifying antecedent behaviours is often misleading. For instance, the assurance that low standard of living and lack of formal training were the causes of criminal behaviours of an offender may be misleading”. Similarly, several researches have shown that prison treatment does not reduce former inmates’ criminal activity (Drago et al., 2008).

According to Freeman (2003), available data on recidivism in Nigeria is an indication that a good percentage of ex-offenders who are released by the Nigerian Correctional centres re-offend and get re-incarcerated. Similarly, Braithwaite (1989) maintains that reintegrating the offenders remains largely unsuccessful. More recently, Latessa et al. (2020) observed that rehabilitation programmes, especially those that focus on factors other non-criminogenic factors, such as creative abilities, physical conditioning and self-esteem do not reduce criminal behaviour. This reinforces the position of Hurd, a former British Home Secretary, who pointed out that “prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse” (The Economist, 2017). The scepticism that graces the rehabilitative notion or what Garland (2001) refers to as the decline of the rehabilitative ideal is justified when viewed from Nigeria’s experience with its prison population. Therefore, rather than focusing on preparing inmates for life after imprisonment through rehabilitation programmes, ‘new punishment’ an idea characterised by deterrence and incapacitation developed into the objective of prison in political dialogue because of the lack of success of rehabilitation ideas. This change in the use of the prison system is also known as the new punishment or culture of control.

Consequently, rather than functioning as an instrument of rehabilitation, the correctional system and the entire criminal justice system relapsed into a new era of ‘punitiveness’ (Garland 2001). However, the rehabilitation idea has survived frequent attacks and it is now progressively guiding crime control policies and practices in many countries across the world (Cullen, 2013). There are several arguments both practical and theoretical, in support of the rehabilitation idea. For example, Cullen & Gendreau (2000) maintain that rehabilitation programmes are truly capable of reducing the level of re-offending and criminality in general and this has come to represent why the welfare of inmates and rehabilitation programmes become important in offender management. Therefore, in countries where inmate rehabilitation, rather than outright retribution is favoured, imprisonment policy revolves around inmate rehabilitation and some degree of compassionate treatment, particularly as spelt out by the UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Offenders and other relevant documents. The Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark hold the ace in this direction. According to Ugelvic (2016), Nordic prisons are regarded as examples of humanity and decency in penal systems. The rehabilitation idea is also largely popular among countries following the concept of libertarianism and democratic ethos. The objectives of imprisonment in these countries have been shifted from outright punishment to deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation (Dambazau, 2012).

Aspect of rehabilitation in Correctional centers

Research has shown that the nature and quality of correctional services play a significant role in determining the success of rehabilitation efforts (Clear, 2009). Firstly, access to educational and vocational programs within correctional facilities has been found to have a positive impact on inmate rehabilitation. Participation in such programs can improve inmates' skills and knowledge, making them more employable upon release (Aos et al., 2006). Furthermore, educational opportunities can enhance inmates' self-esteem and sense of self-worth, contributing to their overall well-being and reducing the likelihood of recidivism (Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001).

Secondly, the provision of mental health and substance abuse treatment services within correctional settings is crucial for addressing underlying issues that may contribute to criminal behavior. Effective treatment programs can help inmates manage their conditions, reduce symptoms, and develop coping strategies, thereby decreasing their likelihood of reoffending (Taxman, Young, & Byrne, 2002).However the effectiveness of correctional services in promoting inmate rehabilitation depends on various factors, including the availability of educational and treatment programs, the quality of staff-inmate interactions, and the use of evidence-based practices. By addressing these factors comprehensively, correctional services can play a significant role in facilitating the reintegration of inmates into society and reducing recidivism rates.Thirdly, the quality of relationships between inmates and correctional staff also influences rehabilitation outcomes. Positive interactions characterized by empathy, respect, and support can foster a sense of trust and cooperation, leading to better engagement in rehabilitation programs and improved post-release outcomes (Gaes, Flanagan, Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999).

Additionally, the implementation of evidence-based practices, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing, has been shown to be effective in addressing criminogenic needs and promoting pro-social behavior among inmates (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). These approaches focus on changing criminal thinking patterns and attitudes, enhancing problem-solving skills, and promoting accountability, all of which are essential for successful rehabilitation.

Impact rehabilitation programme on inmate in Nigeria prison

in discussing the impact of rehabilitation programs on inmates in Nigerian prisons, it's essential to acknowledge the unique context and challenges faced within the Nigerian correctional system. Firstly, access to rehabilitation programs in Nigerian prisons has been limited due to various factors, including inadequate funding, overcrowding, and understaffing (Okunola, 2018). Despite these challenges, research suggests that participation in rehabilitation programs can have positive effects on inmates' attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes both during incarceration and post-release.

For instance, a study by Edeh et al. (2017) found that inmates who participated in educational and vocational training programs in Nigerian prisons reported improvements in self-esteem, motivation, and social skills. These programs provided opportunities for inmates to acquire valuable skills and knowledge, increasing their employability and reducing the likelihood of recidivism upon release.

Furthermore, psychological and behavioral interventions, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and substance abuse treatment, have shown promise in addressing criminogenic needs and promoting pro-social behavior among Nigerian inmates (Oluwadiya, 2018). By targeting underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior, these interventions can help inmates develop coping strategies, improve decision-making skills, and cultivate a sense of responsibility, thereby enhancing their prospects for successful reintegration into society.

However, it's essential to note that the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in Nigerian prisons may be hindered by various challenges, including limited resources, inadequate infrastructure, and cultural barriers (Ogawa & Olaniyi, 2018). Additionally, the lack of post-release support and reintegration services can undermine the long-term impact of rehabilitation efforts, as many released inmates struggle to find employment, housing, and social support (Okunola, 2018).

Challenges of Inmate Rehabilitation Policy Implementation in Nigeria

Efforts to improve inmate rehabilitation in Nigeria have not yielded the desired results in the country, despite the passage of the Correctional Service Act in 2019. The Nigerian correctional system, in the words of Mbembe (2001) remains a prominent force in the process of subjecting Nigerians rather than being used as an instrument of correction. Inmate rehabilitation in Nigeria, therefore remains largely in the realm of aspiration. The use of imprisonment as a preferred sentencing option in Nigeria without reference to the capacity to reform not only constitutes stress on the correctional system but also undermines the state’s capacity to maintain security which is a natural precondition for socioeconomic development all over the world. Therefore, the lack of symmetry between the state capacity for inmate rehabilitation and the ever-increasing number of inmates in Nigerian correctional centres has made the prisons in Nigeria constitute a security risk to ordinary peaceloving Nigerians. In the words of Omotola (2016), adequate state capacity is an essential foundation for state effectiveness in the discharge of its core functions.

Similarly, Osaghae (2010) concludes that Nigeria is in the category of states which have not been able to demonstrate sufficient capacity to handle their affairs. These states have variously been labelled as failed states, weak states, failing states, collapsed states etc. He went further to assert that Nigeria, like most sub-Saharan states has weak regulatory and conflict management institutions, including the police and other security forces, credible judicial structure and access to justice, all of which encourage resort to conflict-ridden, violent, nonsystematic and extra-constitution mode of grievance articulation and redress seeking. For this article, therefore, the factors of policy under-performance or failure shall be interrogated about the implementation of inmate rehabilitation policy in Nigeria.

Regarding inmate rehabilitation policy in Nigeria, different imprisonment practices existed in different parts of the country in the pre-colonial era and these practices largely influenced prison practices until 1968 when the Native prisons were abolished to pave the way for the unification of the Nigerian Correctional Service. Tribal factors influence inmate rehabilitation in several ways. For example, Oyewo (2021) observed that language barriers constitute a major impediment to the rehabilitation policy in correctional centres. Also, the prison population in Nigeria exhibits a low level of literacy (NBS,2016) and most rehabilitation programmes, especially skills and vocational training are conducted in local languages thereby making it difficult for non-native inmates to benefit from available rehabilitation programmes. Likewise, inmates of the Nigerian correctional centres also exhibit the character of the general population in Nigeria. In this direction, the factors of tribalism, favouritism and nepotism are replicated among the inmates of the Nigerian correctional centres and this influences the power relations in the correctional centres in a manner that isolates minority groups (Oyewo, 2021).

Similarly, Agagu & Omotoso (2010) identify the influence of policy actors who they described as political and bureaucratic office holders in the policy process as a major bane of effective policy formulation and implementation. For them, the nature of the state in Nigeria which, for all purposes and intent, is a neo-colonial structure affects the ‘publicness’ of public policies in Nigeria. It is perhaps on this basis that Tatalo-Alamu (2009) maintains that “the character of a society is, in the final analysis, a reflection of the character of its elites… if Nigeria has become a liveable hellhole; a post-colonial inferno of disturbed citizens, it is because the elite has made it so”. About the Nigerian Correctional Service, the ruling class, particularly, lawmakers in Nigeria (at the national and state levels), perhaps due to the influence of prolonged military rule, are still fond of making nearly all crimes punishable through imprisonment in the country. For example, environmental and road traffic offences such as street hawking/trading, reckless driving, drunkenness etc. are still punishable by imprisonment in contemporary Nigeria.

Sabatier (1998) also pays attention to the crisis of public policy formulation and implementation in Nigeria. He argues that external factors such as the constitutional structure and socio-cultural values, affect the policy cycle, thus facilitating either the success or failure of any given policy. In a related development, Parkinson (2004) gives another perspective as to why policies fail while arguing about the deliberative process. According to him, the failure or success of any given policy is influenced by its institutional setting and the extent to which a deliberative approach is used in the policy cycle. He contends that adequate collaboration between the state and institutions saddled with policy implementation at various key points in the policy process, is required to engender a successful policy cycle. In Nigeria, there exist both legal and social impediments to the successful implementation of inmate rehabilitation policy. In addition to the negative impact of stigmatisation on Nigerians who have experienced incarceration in the country, legal barriers, especially in the area of recruitment, oftentimes, reduce ex-inmates job opportunities. The centralised nature of the Nigerian Correctional Service does not allow the diversity of the country to reflect in the process of rehabilitation, whereas, successful community reentry necessitates good communication between the community and institutional corrections (Serin, 2005).

While the state governments in the country have, by the 2019 Correctional Service Act, been granted some responsibilities in the operations of the correctional service, for example, community service management, administrative bottlenecks still militate against the participation of the second-tier government in the process of inmate rehabilitation, thereby depriving rehabilitation idea the possible benefit of the initiative and funding from the state government. Therefore, the design, implementation and funding of rehabilitation ideas remain over-centralised

Furthermore, the lack of cordiality between public policy and research has been identified as one of the major reasons public policies in Nigeria and other developing countries hardly achieve intended goals (Ajakaiye & Roberts (1997). Similarly, Olomola (2005) opines that the research and policy community in Nigeria work at cross-purposes and the problem is growing. Most policies in Nigeria are not research driven and this reduces the capacity of government to positively affect the lives of the people. It is on this basis that UNESCO (2007) observes that a strong commitment to a more dynamic and better-integrated research-policy nexus has normative significance. The inmate rehabilitation idea in Nigeria is not research-driven. For example, contrary to the outcome of evidence-based research that revealed the greater performance of inmate rehabilitation programmes that address causes of offences (Serin, 2005), inmate rehabilitation programmes are not tailored towards inmate criminogenic needs (Oyewo, 2021).

.2 THEORETICAL REVIEW

A theory is an organized systematic body of knowledge that explains natural phenomenon. Theoretical framework is a process that applies the postulations, assumptions and principles of a theory in describing and analyzing of a research problem. It is also seen as describing, analyzing, interpreting and predicting phenomenon and it also involves associating or linking the problem of a study and also helps to give backing and credibility to the study that is being executed by giving the research work focus and direction to enhance justification and legitimacy of research.

Re-integrative shaming theory:

John Braithwaite advanced this theory in 1989 as an alternative to carceral and coercive methods of social control, the idea is dealing with offenders in ways, which embodies the expression of community and familial disapproval (Braithwaite, Citation1989).

Punishment and correction also incorporates a process of reacceptance of an offender into the society. Such positive re-entry is aimed at establishing the love and appreciation that the offender have learnt a new lesson about life and he is expected to pick up a new chapter in life. A effective effort to make or force lawbreakers to express remorse, imbibe attitudinal change and make amends for their criminal life course as a means of restoring justice, law, and order in the community is referred to as shaming (McLaughlin & Muncie, Citation2013). As the name suggests, shaming offenders does not imply isolation, embarrassment or stigmatization. Rather, the society as a whole, through its criminal justice process, not only effectively “shamed” or corrected the deviant behaviour of people but also create the process of follow-up to ensure their successful reintegration and even aftercare

The emphasis is on “shame” or “shaming” in the principle of re-integrative shaming for clarification and to prevent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of reality by uninitiated observers. Re-integrative shaming theory is a way to drastically reduce the population of re-offenders who goes into the prison (recidivism). Deviants and offenders are made to feel guilty and confess of their criminal acts, but their self-concept and self-esteem are not harmed or battered in any way because they are constructively and socially “shamed” (corrected) by restorative justice facilitators who share familial and/or communal affinity with both the victim and the offender. (Nnam, Citation2016).

` The study also made use of Sir John Salmond Reformative theory as elaborated upon by Anupam Anupam (Citation2014), the aim of punishment is to help offenders change their ways. This philosophy helps to shift the offender’s mentality so that he may reintegrate into society as a law-abiding citizen. And if a person commits a crime under specific situations, he remains a human being. The conditions in which he committed the crime are unlikely to repeat themselves. Crime is a psychiatric illness brought about by a variety of antisocial factors. As a result, rather than punishing offenders, mental rehabilitation will suffice. Criminals who have been educated and trained would be capable of behaving responsibly in community. The overcrowding in the Nigeria Prison necessitated the remanding of awaiting trial inmates with convicted inmates. This method of incarceration enhances criminal behavioural tendencies amongst the awaiting trial inmates.

Rehabilitation Theory of Punishment

The study adopted the Foucauldian version of the rehabilitation theory of punishment. The theory took its roots from the utilitarian theory as espoused by Bentham (1843). Rehabilitation theory is generally ‘consequentialist’ in nature and the Foucauldian version of the theory is premised on the belief that punishment by imprisonment should target the mind of the felon to correct the aberrant behaviour. Punishment by imprisonment according to Foucault should be corrective and inmates ought to be subjected to rehabilitation, rather than retribution. He went further to assert that the prison is supposed to be an instrument of social control and as such, the felon, rather than being cut off and stigmatised, must after correction, be accepted and re-integrated. Another major assumption of the theory, according to Foucault is that the penitentiaries and their organisational framework need to function as part of the modern political economy through learning and production. With this approach, the correctional institutions are not mainly meant to sequester crime through incarceration of the offenders but also empower them to be useful to society upon discharge. Foucault (1995) explained that the development of rehabilitation as the major justification for imprisonment is premised on several factors including the changing nature of power relations between the government and citizens and human civilization and explains the essence of imprisonment as punishment contends that even if an offender has violated the laws of the society, he remains a human being and therefore, deserves to be treated based on humanistic principles. The theory sees punishment as a form of cure for crime. Therefore, the objective of punishment should be to reform the felon. Other advocates of Rehabilitation Theory such as Ewing (1980) contend that through a humanistic approach to offender management, a positive change may be brought about in the character of the felons. The theory further contends that severe punishment of inmates can simply humiliate criminals and harden them but certainly not reform them. According to Dambazau (2012), reformation is one of the most subscribed explanations for imprisonment in the 21st century. The theory is a variant of the utilitarian theory of punishment which is generally forward-looking and tends to view punishment as a way of advancing societal interest through reformation.

2.3EMPIRICAL STUDIES

Oyekunle (2023) examined the challenges of policy implementation in Nigeria with a focus on inmate rehabilitation ideas in Nigerian correctional centres. Attempts to make prisons in Nigeria treatment or rehabilitation centres is not a recent phenomenon but the passage of the Nigerian Correctional Service Bill into law in 2019 was a watershed in the history of correctional rehabilitation in the country. In addition to the change of name to reflect rehabilitation as the goal of incarceration, Section 14 (1&2) of the 2019 Correctional Service Act provides for the rehabilitation of inmates as a core responsibility of the service. Using a desk research approach, the paper explored available information to examine the progress of inmate rehabilitation idea in Nigeria. However, challenges to effective policy implementation have negatively impacted the implementation of inmate rehabilitation policy in the country. Implementing effective inmate rehabilitation policies in Nigeria requires a holistic and sustained effort involving various stakeholders, including the government, non-governmental organisations and the community, staff training, assessment and classification of inmates, removal of legal and social barriers, improved funding, and improved collaboration with the non-governmental organisations.

Ayuk et al (207) used ex-post facto method to study The Impact of Prison Reforms on the Welfare of the Inmates: A Case Study of Afokang Prison, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria. Their findings included: Nigerian prisons will enhance their corrective functions of inmates when prison staffs are properly informed on the activities and workings of the prison. The study further revealed that the prison management should be carrying the staff along in decision making to enable them be dedicated to their work. This confirms Osaze’s assertion (1996) that all inmates should be equally treated. There should not be any form of segregation or discrimination in handling prisoners in other not to lead to prison riot within the prison wall. They posited that when inmates are equally treated, it will lead to obedience on the part of the inmate and consequently lead to easy correction of inmates. It was also found that, the job satisfaction of prison staff will lead to effective correction of inmates. All these are the internal factors that could enhance the correction of inmates in Nigeria prisons.

Emero (2016) investigated factors affecting the correctional functions of prisons in nigeria: a study of aguata and onitsha prisons.Three hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 significant levels for the study. The sample size for the study comprised 301 respondents. cutting across Prison inmates and Prison staff. The sampling technique for the study was the Proportionate sampling technique. The structured questionnaire and In-depth Interview (IDI) guide served as the instruments for data collection. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software was used to code and analyze the quantitative data. This entailed the use of descriptive and Chi-square inferential statistics to present the data and test the formulated hypotheses. The findings of the study revealed that the internal factors influencing the correction of inmates include: Staff briefing inmates on any matter that affects them (effective communication), inmates using the goodwill of prison officials to meet some of their pressing needs outside the prison walls, prison environment being kept very clean and hygienic, inmates being fed and clothed properly, and attitude of prison officials towards inmates. The external factors include: cordial relationship between the prisons and their host communities, the activities of faith-based organizations and nongovernmental organizations and prompt releases of finance from the government. Also, the findings indicate that corrupt practices among prison officials, insufficient prison cells, lack of functional correctional facilities, power struggle between prison staff, poor communication between prison staff and inmates, inequitable distribution of resources meant for prison inmates and poor working attitude of some of the prison staff were some of the constraints to the correctional functions of the prisons. However the study recommends proactive steps urgent legislation on realistic prisons reforms and policies that would emphasize on eradicating corruption among the prisons officials and increase in the budgetary allocations for the prisons.

Oyeyipo (2022) examined Prison overcrowding trend in Nigeria and policy implications on health. The study looked into the problem of overcrowding not just as a gap within the Nigerian Criminal Justice system but rather as policy implementation default. The study made use of secondary data sourced from the Nigeria Bureau of Statistics on prison capacity and total lock-up within the years 2011–2016. Over the years examined, the article concentrated on the prison capacity and lock-up for the six years with the view to understanding other underlining factors that could account for overcrowding in the prisons. The study attributed the cause of overcrowding in the Nigeria Prisons to major policy default in implementation of increase in prison capacity syndrome. Southern Nigeria even though reduced in population and prison capacity compared to the Northern Nigeria, accounts for 55% of the lock-up as at 2016. Also, Northern Nigeria Prison is 3% overcrowded while the Southern Prisons is 81% overcrowded as at 2016. It therefore behooves of the Government to implement policies on prison capacity increase based on crime rate in each of the zones.