A STUDY OF THE HANDLING OF INMATES AND THE NATURE OF INMATE SUBCULTURE IN SELECTED PRISONS IN NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

The study focused on the handling of inmates and the nature of inmate subculture in selected prisons in Nigeria, namely Kirikiri Maximum Prison, Lagos, Kuje Medium Prison, Abuja and Kakuri Open Prison Camp, Kaduna. The research aimed at investigating into the treatment approach adopted by the uniformed staff in handling convicts in their custody; inmates and staff perceptions of the goals of imprisonment; the extent the prisons abide by the Standard Minimum Rules (SMRs) of the United Nations; the nature of inmate subculture in the prisons; and inmates‘ attitude towards the reformation and rehabilitation programmes.Two theories which address inmate subculture, namely, indigenous origin theory (deprivation theory) and importation theory, together with rehabilitation theory, were thoroughly examined for the purpose of adopting the theoretical framework for the study. Deprivation theory which addresses the closeness and traditional-oriented nature of Nigerian prisons and rehabilitation theory which addresses proper handling of inmates were adopted as the theoretical frameworks of the study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected for the purpose of tackling the research problem. Questionnaire was the instrument used to collect quantitative data. Total sample sizes of 162 and 135 of inmates and uniformed staff respectively were drawn from sample frames of 485 inmates and 406 uniformed staff which ensured that at least one in every three categories of inmates and staff was included in the sample. Stratified sampling technique was employed to ensure that the prisons were proportionally represented in the study. In each prison, systematic sampling technique was applied to draw the allocated sample sizes of inmates and uniformed staff respondents from the sample frames.Qualitative data were collected from certain categories of inmates and staff in order to complement quantitative data collected from samples of inmates and staff. In-depth interview (using check list) and non-participant observation (using observation guide) were also used in this regard. The respondents here include inmate leaders, inmates attached to reformation and rehabilitation programmes; key administrative officers and reformation and rehabilitation officers/instructors.The data analysis was carried out at two levels, namely univariate and bivariate. Among other things, the study revealed that the uniformed staff were liberal-oriented in their attitude towards the inmates which ushered in good relationships between staff and inmates; that staff and inmates perceived the imprisonment goals differently; that most essential rules of the SMRs were not complied with; that the inmate government (inmate subculture) differed considerably in modus operandi from the conventional inmate subculture; and the inmates had positive attitude towards the reformation and rehabilitation programmes. In view of the findings, the researcher recommended both short-term and long-term measures to tackle the challenges facing the prisons. The short-term measures include exploring non-custodial punishments for minor criminal and civil offences instead of over-reaching the Criminal Justice System (CJS); adequate separation of convicts in prison custody to avoid the devastating effects of prisonization; and adequate funding of prisons by the government concerned. Long-term measures include separation of prisons and jails; systematic conversion of warders to liberal treatment officers; and official establishment of participatory government in prisons in view of the cordial relationships between prison authority and the inmate government. Suggestions for further researches include periodic studies of discharged inmates and examining the dynamic interplay between inmates‘ attitude to rehabilitation programmes and post release success.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Prior to the introduction of the contemporary prisons in Nigeria, various indigenous societies had ways of, and institutions for, dealing with criminals. Such ways included fine, flogging, mutilation, amputation, ostracism, banishment, enslavement and execution, depending on the gravity of the offense committed. Holding facilities existed in many societies such as Ogboni House in Yorubaland, Ewedo in Edo Kingdom, Ulo Nga in Igboland and Gidan Yari in Hausaland (Awe, 1968; Ahire, 1990). Ayittey (1991) maintained that all over the world, ―interned inmates (prisoners) are generally regarded as criminals, yet the way a nation treats her prisoners is a good measure of the humanity of its government and citizens.^‖ According to Nwolise (2010), African societies, prior to the invasion of the continent by the slave dealers (1440s) and colonial master (1850s), had their respective and effective criminal justice systems, but no prisons.

Ayittey (1991) further attested that there were laws, (unwritten constitution, traditions, customs, codes of morality, conventions, covenants, and pronouncements of kings – in- Council); law enforcement institutions (King‘s messengers, the youths, age grades, female groups,secret societies, masquerades etc), courts (King‘s court, people‘s Court, etc), and corrections processes aimed not at punitive and retributive goals but at delivering justice, restoring and promoting social harmony through restoration/restitution and compensation.

The contemporary Nigerian Criminal Justice System (CJS), which prison is a part of, was introduced by the British Colonial Government (Awe, 1968; and Orakwe, 2011). Criminal Justice System is an organized legal institution which is made up of three major components namely, law enforcement, judiciary and correctional institutions. Newman (1978) defines the system as a loose federation of agencies, each separately budgeted, each drawing its manpower from separate wells and each a profession unto itself. Moore (1997) noted that Criminal Justice System is not a system in the sense that the component agencies are centrally controlled by an authority but that the agencies are linked through a process in which the ―outputs‖ of one agency become the ―inputs‖ of the next agency in the criminal justice process. It is the machinery through which an accused person is processed and disposed (Dambazau, 1999).

Normally, the Criminal Justice System is responsible for the regulation and control of criminal behaviour as well as the instrument of maintaining order, peace and justice. The Criminal Justice System is the manifestation of society‘s use of due process (Macionis, 2009). The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (amended) requires that the society responds to crime using due process. This implies that the Criminal Justice System must operate within the ambit of the law in handling the cases of suspected criminals. According to the Constitution, no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In view of these provisions, those charged with crimes have the right to defend themselves and to confront their accusers; they have a right to legal counsel and a speedy, impartial and public trial; they can refuse to testify against themselves; and they cannot be tried twice for the same crime (1999 Constitution (amended), chapter 1v:33-45). Perhaps, brief explanations of the major subsystems of the Criminal Justice System will help us to appreciate it the more.

The Police: The annexation of Lagos as an extension of British Government in 1861 marked the beginning of the institution of formal machinery of governance in Nigeria (Orakwe, 2011). At this point in time, the British colonial government was chiefly concerned with the protection of legitimate trade; guarantee the profit of British merchants as well as the activities of missionaries (Ahire, 1990).In view of this, Mr. McCrosky, the then acting governor of the colony, and a prominent British merchant in Lagos, formed a police force of about twenty-five (25) constables (Obilade, 1979) and that marked the beginning of police force in Nigeria.

Under the colonial government, the police had wide functions to perform which included the prevention and detection of crimes, repression of internal disturbances, and defense of the colony. In addition, it was used to suppress local resistance to foreign rule and carry out the colonial territorial expansionist policy (Alemika, 1983). The police, in view of the functions, doubled as an armed force during the colonial government. Presently, the general duties of the police as contained in the Police Act and Regulations (CAP. P19. LFN2004) are: ―prevention and detection of crime; the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order; the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or without Nigeria as may be required by them, or under the authority of, this or any other Act (Part 11, section 4).

The police are the most visible component of the Criminal Justice System in view of the fact that they maintain regular direct contact with the public. The agency provides entry into the Criminal Justice System either through crime reports from the members of the public or through its discoveries and investigations. A policeman, as the saying goes, is the ―gate-keeper‖ of the Criminal Justice System. This is because he determines who enters into the Criminal Justice System and his decision has wider implications for other subsystems (Dambazau, 1999). In the course of his duty, a policeman exercises much discretion which affects the entire Criminal Justice System in the long run. He determines whether or not a given act is an offense; where to patrol; who to interrogate; what to investigate, and what to report officially. The Nigerian police encounter many difficulties in performing their constitutional duties. The work of investigation requires the investigating police officer to visit the location of the scene of crime, recoding of testimony and making arrest wherever desirable. Unfortunately, the police are very unpopular among the populace and therefore lack their much required support and cooperation. Generally, the police have negative image as being corrupt, unfriendly and coercive. Siddique (2005) noted that the bitter police-public relationship dated back to the freedom struggle during the British rule. The police had the duty to maintain law and order which exposed them to confrontation with the public. The result was that the agency was placed in an unenviable position and the obvious target of public fury. Without prejudice to the reason, the present unenviable records of the police‘s brutalities and unprofessional acts in Nigeria cannot be underestimated. The police are involved in all manner of corruption, extortion and extra-judicial killings. The killing of the leader of the Boko Haram sect, Yusuf Mohammed, who was allegedly captured alive by the army and handed over to the police was a case in point (―Sect leader alive when captured‖ BBC News, 3 August,2009).Under their operation ―fire for fire many captured suspects die in their custody or are shot dangerously while attempting to escape (Dinkalu, 1999). Apart from the strained police-public relationship, the universal tendency for people to keep away from the problems of others compounds the problems of the police. In actual fact the police ought to be people-friendly and protect lives and property. The departure of the police from its traditional role contributes a lot to prison congestion since it is the police that, in most cases, determine who enters the criminal justice process through its arrests and detentions.

The Courts: Prior to the British colonization and occupation of the territories which comprised what is known as Nigeria today, the indigenous people had developed a system of maintaining law, order and justice (Obilade, 1979; Okonkwo, 1990). In most of the areas which constituted what is today known as Northern Nigeria, the law in force was the Muslim law of Maliki School based on the Holy Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad; in the areas now constituting the Southern Nigeria and some parts of the territories now the northern states, the law in force was unwritten customary law (Obilade, 1979; Okonkwo, 1990; Dina, Akintayo and Ekundayo, 2005).

During the period in question, the British and other foreign merchants had already started to trade with the indigenous people on the coast of West Africa-Lagos, Benin, Bonny, Brass, New Calabar (Degema) and Old Calabar (Calabar) (Obilade, 1979). Then, it was the duty of the local courts to settle trade disputes between foreign and indigenous traders (Dina, Akintayo and Ekundayo, 2005). However, the foreign merchants were not satisfied and complained to their home governments that they hardly obtained justice in the native courts. Consequently, in 1949, the British government appointed the first consul for the purpose of regulating the trade between the British and indigenous traders (Obilade, 1979). The consul established consular courts which dealt with trading disputes between British and indigenous traders. In addition, equity courts were jointly established by British and indigenous traders in coastal areas of Benin, Bonny, Brass and Calabar (Obilade, 1979; Dina, Akintayo and Ekundayo, 2005).

At Independence in 1960, Nigeria evolved a legal system but not very different from what it inherited from the colonial masters. The constitution of 1999 (as amended) primarily charged the judiciary with the responsibility of law-making and to follow the law-making procedures as specified in sections 58 and 59. The courts constitute the second subsystem of the Criminal Justice System which is set up to define, interpret and apply the law, and ensure its enforcement for the purpose of maintaining tranquility in society. The court stands for justice, depicted by the justice scale. The courts consist of lawyers, judges and jurists who are expected to discharge their constitutional responsibilities without fear or favor, hence the independence of the judiciary enshrined in the Nigerian constitution. The judiciary which comprises the courts is referred to as ―the last hope of the common man‖. By implication, it serves as an avenue for any person wronged, whether poor or rich, to obtain redress. When a crime is committed and the suspect arrested, formal action must be channeled through a court. It is a court that has the legislative competence to determine guilt or innocence of the accused. Any person who trespasses by the way of harming the accused is liable to prosecution in the court of law for taking laws into his hands. Like the police, colonial courts (consular courts) established by the British government at the Lagos colony were meant to protect the business interests of the British merchants who felt that the native courts that were arbitrating in trading disputes between them and indigenous traders were not in their favor. Through the importation and imposition of English law-common law, equity and English statutes-the British colonial government legally created a favorable business environment to enable British merchants to exploit their indigenous counterparts. Local laws and customs were relegated by subjecting them to the tests of repugnancy to natural justice, equity and good conscience (Obilade, 1979). Even today, the courts have left much to be desired in discharging their avowed constitutional obligations. The Constitution (1999) (amended) provides for an independence of the judiciary; in practice, the judiciary is subject to executive and legislative pressures, influenced by political leaders at both federal and state levels and it suffers from corruption and inefficiency. Today, the problem of prison congestion cannot be divorced from court congestion perpetuated by unnecessary delay of cases. The right to a speedy and fair trial has faded away. The high number of ―Awaiting Trial Inmates‖ which dominates the prison population in Nigeria has to do with the inability of the courts to dispense justice without delay. Sanda (2007) maintained that the congestion at the court which is a carryover from the courts to the prisons arises from series of adjournments in both listing and hearing of charges. The result is over stretching of the available prison facilities.

The negative consequences are of two folds: the Awaiting Trial Inmates who are not exposed to any formal treatment (except being locked in cells) greatly increase the population to the extent that the convicted inmates receive inadequate attention as regards their reformation and rehabilitation; and those not convicted are freed after wasted years of ―illegal incarceration, leaving them feeling dejected and wronged.

The Historical Evolution of the Nigerian Prison System

Modern prisons are enmeshed in a number of roles, some of which seem to be incompatible. This is because, on one hand, prisons are required to incapacitate and punish offenders taken into hostage, on the other hand, they are required to discipline, reform, teach self-reliance and rehabilitate the offenders. Many critics are of the opinion that these multi-dimensional functions are not possible to be realized by prisons concurrently in view of their contradictions. Sir Alexander Paterson, a member of Prison Commission (U.K) from 1922 to 1947, maintained that ―you cannot train a man for freedom under conditions of captivity‖ (Siddique 2005). Just like other subsystems of the Nigerian Criminal Justice Systems discussed earlier, the Nigerian prison system owes its origin to the British annexation and occupation of the Lagos Colony in 1861 (Elias, 1968; Obilade, 1979; Dina, et al 2005). The establishment of police and courts in the colony and its environs necessitated the establishment of prison to complete the Criminal Justice System. Consequently, in 1872, Broad Street Prison Lagos, with the initial intake of 300 inmates, was established (Elias, 1968; Dina, et al 2005 and Orakwe, 2011). The progressive encroachment of the British into the hinterland and the establishment of British protectorate towards the end of the 19^th century necessitated the establishment of the prisons as the last link in the Criminal Justice System (Orakwe, 2011). Thus by 1910, there already were prisons in Degema, Calabar, Onitsha, Asaba, Benin, Ibadan, Sapele, Jebba and Lokoja under the control of the Police Department (Elias, 1968; Obilade, 1979; and Orakwe, 2011).

By 1906 the British Colonial Government had declared protectorates over the East, West and North and finally amalgamated the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria as a political entity, Nigeria on January, 1914 (Obilade, 1979). At this point in time, instead of having unified prison system, Orakwe (2011) observed that there was a dualisation: the National Prisons under the control of the government and the Native Authority Prisons under the control of the local rulers. The Prison Ordinance 1916 and Prison Regulation 1917 were mostly applicable to the National Prisons since the local rulers were given free hand to run the local prisons under them. The ordinance and the regulation formally established the prisons and their operations and empowered the governor to establish and regulate the operations of the prisons; to declare any building in any place to be a prison and to appoint the Director of Prisons and other officials to manage and superintend the entire Prisons system (Elias, 1968; Orakwe, 2011). By this ordinance, the Director of Prisons was also empowered to make standing orders for the organization, discipline, clothing and staffing of the prisons staff and inmates.

Also, the non-unification of the prison system then could be seen in the marked difference in which the southern and northern prisons were administered. In the south, where the prisons were modeled along British standard, there were three categories of prisons. A convict prison was for those sentenced to more than two years of imprisonment; a provincial prison for offenders serving less than two years of imprisonment; and a divisional prison was meant for offenders serving less than six months (Elias, 1968). Convictand provincial prisons were placed under senior prison officials and Divisional Prisons were placed under the supervision of the administrative officers. The overall control, administration and supervision of prisons were placed under the Director of Prisons appointed by the Governor.

In the North, the prison administration was entirely different from what obtained in the south. Native authorities operated prisons on local levels under the day to day supervision of the Chief Warder, ―Yari‖ (Elias, 1968). The prisons were under the direction of the Northern Inspector – General of Police. Police officers mostly performed the work of warders as the prisons were treated as an appendage of the police cells. As things began to unfold, the Native Authority Prisons controlled by the local rulers began to be abused, especially in the North and other areas where the local feudal authorities wielded enormous powers (Elias, 1968; Orakwe, 2011). The local chiefs used such powers to settle old political scores, extract tributes, subvert the course of justice and generally perpetuated injustice. They were also very poorly run and the local prison conditions varied from one place to another in their disorganization, callousness and exploitation (Orakwe, 2011).The National Prison, directly controlled and staffed by the colonial government did not fare well either. The Prisons regulation was published in 1917 to prescribe admission, custody, treatment and classification procedures as well as staffing, dieting and clothing regimes for the prisons. These processes were limited in one very general sense. They were not geared towards any particular type of treatment of inmates. Instead they represent just policies of containment of those who were already in prison (Orakwe, 2011). In view of the above deficiencies exhibited by both national and native authority prisons, Ahire (1990) maintained that colonial prison was imperatively adopted by foreign and oppressive ruling class to subjugate, intimidate and subordinate the indigenous people. He went further to affirm that at this stage the colonial prison was not ready to reform any one, but unmistakably functioned to take custody of, and control of, those who resisted colonial domination and exploitation.

Prisons were highly congested and different categories of inmates (first offenders, habitual offenders and non-criminals) were lumped together in cells. Lack of spacious accommodation hampered smooth administration. In many areas, existing buildings were converted to prisons; there was no deliberate plan to build prisons. Reformation and rehabilitation were given little or no attention. The emphasis was on hard labour (Awe, 1968). Moreover, during the colonial government the bulk of the prison staff were ex-servicemen noted for their authoritarianism which showed that the prison system was carefully groomed towards militancy and cruelty, but nevertheless it served the colonial purpose (Orakwe, 2011).

The prison service under colonial government only witnessed a relative modernization in 1934 when Colonel V.L. Mabb, an ex-military officer, was appointed the Director of Prisons by the then Governor, Sir Donald Cameron (Awe, 1968; Orakwe, 2011). Mabb worked hard to introduce a unified prison. Though he failed, he succeeded in his supervisory and inspectoral powers over the native authority prisons. It was also during his tenure that the Prisons Warders Welfare Board was formed. Dolan (1946 – 1955) succeeded Mabb as the Director of Prisons. Mr Dolan was a trained prison officer with an ample field of prison administrative experience. Dolan inherited deplorable prisons condition and conditions of service. He emphasized the philosophy of reformation and rehabilitation and set up operational guidelines on how they could be achieved. He made classification of prisoners mandatory in all prisons, introduced visits by relations to inmates, introduced progressive earning schemes for long term first offenders and embarked on staff development/training.

Dolan retired from the service in 1951 and was succeeded by K. Carew (1951-61) as the Director of Prisons. Carew did not achieve much, probably because his period was pre-occupied with the arrangement towards self-rule in the country. Francis (1961) replaced Carew as the Acting Director of Prisons for the period of six months before he handed over to the first indigenous director, Chief F.S Giwa-Osagie. The appointment of Osagie as the Director of Prisons ushered in rapid process of Nigerianization of the key positions in the prison service (Awe, 1968). Cadet officers recruited in 1958 were used to fill senior positions hitherto reserved for expatriate officers. His tenure witnessed a tremendous increase in prison population with the attendant problems such as improper classification of inmates, inadequate accommodation, poor feeding and poor sanitation.

Both federal and native authority prisons were facing serious challenges as a result the Federal Government, in 1968, set up the Gobir Commission to inquire into the problems and make recommendations. Among other things, the Gobir Commission recommended a unified prison system for the country. Consequently, the Native Authority Prisons were abolished and on the 1^stof April 1968, Nigeria had a single prison system with all prisons placed under the control of the Federal Government of Nigeria (Orakwe, 2011).

Following the adoption of the Gobir Commission‘s recommendation and the subsequent release of the White Paper in 1971, reformation and rehabilitation of prison inmates became the central issue of the prison policy. Initially, the policy was contained in the Decree 9 of 1972 (Orakwe, 2011) which stipulated clearly how the prisons were to be run. Very importantly, it spelt out the treatment regimes the inmates would be subjected to; the aim of imprisonment which is recovery as opposed to the punishment that characterized previous regimes. In 1990, the decree was revised as CAP366 Law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The new law did not only uphold the provisions of the decree 9 of 1972 but also went ahead to stipulate ways of treating inmates in custody. The statutory functions of the Prison Service are as follows:

1. to take into lawful custody all those certified to be kept by courts of competent jurisdiction;
2. to produce suspects in courts as and when due;
3. to identify the causes of their anti-social dispositions;
4. to set in motion mechanisms for their treatment and training for eventual reintegration into society as normal law abiding citizens on discharge; and
5. to administer prison farms and industries for this purpose and in the process generate revenue for the government (Prison Act and Regulation CAP366LFN 2004).

As it could be noted from the above provisions, the law guiding the prison service in Nigeria, with particular reference to treatment of inmates, has a human face. It is targeted towards adequate custody, humane treatment and rehabilitation of the inmates. However, it is one thing to make laudable policy and another thing to implement it. This study is focused on ―the handling of inmates and the nature of the inmate subculture in selected prisons in Nigeria‖. The essence is to investigate the actual treatment regimes in the prisons which often give rise to the manner in which inmates are handled by staff and the consequent nature of inmate subculture in the prisons.

1.2 Statement of Research Problem

The study centres on two key variables: ―handling of inmates‖ and ―inmate subculture‖, hence the need to understand the concepts. ―Handling of inmates‖, as conceived here, refers to the process, or manner of approach, adopted by prison staff towards or in dealing with the prisoners under their custody. It embraces all the measures (both official and unofficial) the staff take in order to relieve, cure, or correct the inmates of their criminality. The United Nation‘s Standard Minimum Rules (SMR) for the treatment of offenders (part 1, section 1-55), with respect to the handling of inmates, clearly stipulated the following: absence of discrimination in the treatment of prisoners; proper classification and separation of prisoners according to sex, age, criminal records, the legal reasons for their detention and the necessities of their handling. Also included are issues of accommodation, food, clothing, personal hygiene and medical services; discipline, contact with the outside world; library facilities, religion and the outlook of the institutional personnel. Furthermore, part 2, in respect to the treatment of the inmates, prominently features areas of prison labour, education and recreation as well as social relations and after-care (UNHCR, 1955). Handling of inmates varies from time to time and place to place, depending on the societal perceptions and reactions to crimes and criminals. Wormith and Andrews (1984) maintained that the physical, emotional and psychological prison environment faced by inmates is determined by the prevailing beliefs and attitudes held by the criminal Justice System and the general public concerning the appropriateness of certain types of punishment. According to Wormith and Andrews (1984) some societies maintain that in order for a punishment to be acceptable to the public, it must clearly demonstrate adverse effect. Other societies insist that the punishment of incarceration does not have to, and should not, be equated with harm and that the creation of a humane and effective prison environment requires the development of mechanism with which to reduce deprivation of liberty (John Howard Society of Alberta, 1999).

The corollary of that is that two schools of thought emerged with respect to the handling of prisoners—the classical school and the positivist school. The classical school championed by Bentham and Beccaria maintains that an offender is fully aware of what he does; implying that crime is a deliberate act which if not combated could become a ―life pattern (Obioha, 2002). The advocates maintain that criminality grows out from egoistic and self-satisfying interests of human beings. In their handling approach, they tend to ―make the punishment fit the crime‖ (Barnes, 1972). The positivist school championed by Lombroso, Garofalo and Ferri of the Italian school maintains that the offenders are not solely responsible for their criminal behaviour; that the impacts of the society and other socio-environmental factors cannot be ruled out. In view of this, the advocates insist on the replacement of punishment by scientific methods for the protection of society (Siddique, 2005). They opined that in the handling of prisoners ―the treatment should be made to fit the offender‖ (Barnes, 1972). This research is intended to investigate the way prison uniformed staff (warders) handle inmates under their custody. Inmates in prisons are not entirely isolated from one another but, more often than not, interact as members of a community. Williams and Fish (1974) and Clemmer (1958) maintained that as members of a community, inmates have culture of their own with norms and values which guide their conduct of behaviour and attitudes. The role of the inmate subculture in the lives of the inmates cannot be overlooked. Lloyd cited by Goffman (1961) maintained that: In many ways, the inmate social system may be viewed as providing a way of life which enables the inmates to avoid the devastating psychological effect of internalizing and converting social rejection into self-rejection. In effect,

it permits the inmate to reject his rejecters rather than himself. Clemmer (1958) also maintained that prison inmates are a community and a community has a culture that determines the behaviour patterns of the individuals involved. He was optimistic that participation in the inmate culture for a long time could have a long lasting impact on the individual inmate by making it difficult for him to adjust to the cultural norms of the outside world when released from the institution. Once an inmate becomes a member of the community, in order to survive, he engages in two simultaneous processes of putting aside the values of the outside world and at the same time gradually accepting the values, customs and general culture of the inmates-a process known as prisonization (Clemmer, 1958; Bartol and Bartol, 1994). The mutual obligations created within the inmate subculture strengthen inmate morale, and more significantly, protect inmates who engage in anti-social behaviour and illicit activities (Schrag, 1966).

However, some studies, such as Okunola et al (2002), maintained that inmate subculture is not always anti-social and anti-administration. Okunola, et al (2002) maintained that within the inmate subculture, there is a hierarchy of inmate officials who command the respect of other inmates and, more often than not, are recognized and utilized by the prison authority. The authors went further to affirm that though the ―administration‖ of the informal organization of the inmates has no locus standi in the prison system, it acquires some recognition to the extent that it acts as the link between the inmates and the staff. Unpalatable stories and remarks abound as regards treatment of the inmates, prison facilities and condition of inmates in Nigerian prisons. Many people believe that overcrowding in Nigerian prisons contribute significantly to bad prison conditions to which inmates are subjected. Talking about inadequate Nigerian prison infrastructure, Orakwe (2011) maintained that whatever the demerits the prison system bequeathed Nigeria at the end of the colonial rule, it is by and large far more progressive than the prison structure in Nigeria today.

The overcrowding in Nigerian prisons has been seriously blamed on the judiciary and the police who fail to see that justice is delivered in good time. Ugwuonye (2011) maintained that in Nigeria, instead of disposing of bail application with priority and urgency that would accord meaning and effect to the constitutional presumption of innocence, the courts adjourn bail hearings many times while remanding the suspects in police cells or prison custody. In some cases, judges impose excessive and harsh bail terms which force suspects to remain in custody even after being admitted to bail. Overcrowding in prisons has serious negative implications on the treatment of the inmates. Accommodation, classification, bedding, feeding, medical care and personal hygiene of the inmates, as well as reformation and rehabilitation facilities, are adversely affected.In his ―Comparative Criminology Tour of the World‖, Winslow (2001) maintained that in Nigerian prisons, disease was pervasive in the cramped, poorly ventilated facilities, and there was chronic shortage of medical supplies. Food was irregularly supplied; some inmates had to provide their own food. Petty corruption among prison officials made it difficult for money provided for food to reach inmates. Bed or mattresses were not provided to many inmates, forcing them to sleep on concrete floors, often without blankets. Police and prison officials often denied inmates food and medical treatment as a form of punishment or to extort money from them. Olanrewaju, et al (2011) distinguished between a jail and a prison: a jail is meant for suspects waiting trial and prison for convicted persons. They maintained that in Nigerian prisons, the two groups are lumped together in various cells and stripped of their dignity, due to the fact that prison facilities have been stretched beyond their original capacities. Nwezeh (2010) maintained that the Nigerian prison system was supposed to exist with the full complement to legal, vocational, educational and social services, but the situation has remained pathetic. He went further to state that there is absence of classification of prisoners as in young and old, pre- trial detainees, first time offenders and suspects who committed minor offences as they shared the prison facilities with dangerous criminals. Abiodun (1998) noted that inmates of Yola Prison were not classified either by prison sentence or criminal records; the consequence was that the mentally retarded prisoners, first offenders, long-term, short-term and young prisoners were indiscriminately assigned to cells. Odekunle (1979) and Ahire (1990), have equally testified that the inmates are so regimented to the extent that it appears that the primary purpose of imprisonment in Nigeria is punitive. Odekunle (1979) observed that Nigerian prisons were operating on a mere custodial and punitive philosophy not taking advantage of recent penological innovations such as rational prisoner classification and segregation, work- release and parole.

In view of the above anecdotal accounts and research findings of the issues of treatment of inmates in Nigerian prisons, one wonders the nature of the inmate subculture in Nigerian prisons, the impact on the staff-inmate relationships and the entire reformation and rehabilitation programmes. In his study of Kaduna and Zaria Prisons, Tanimu (2010) noted that the relationship between the staff and the inmates was characterized more by hostility than friendship; that minor infraction of rules attracted undue and severe punishment from the staff and hostility meted to them ranged from physical torture to solitary confinement.

Eze and Okafor (2007), in their study of Nigerian Medium Prison Kirikiri, Lagos, revealed that many inmates join different inmates‘ groups in order to overcome maltreatments from the staff and older prisoners, and harsh prison conditions such as hunger. Hostility between staff and the inmates occasioned by custodial-punitive-treatment approach is most likely to set convicts against the staff with negative implication for the achievement of penal objectives of reformation and rehabilitation. Criminologists such as Clemmer (1958), Goffman (1960), Sykes and Messinger (1960) maintained that depriving inmates and subjecting them to dehumanizing conditions make them to form an informal organization known as inmate subculture for the purpose of protecting themselves. Through the process of fraternization, the inmates who were socially distant persons find themselves developing mutual support and common counter mores in opposition to a system that has forced them into intimacy and into a single, equalitarian, community of fate (Goffman, 1961). According to Williams and Fish (1974), tightly regimented institutions, by dehumanizing the inmate, cause him to be more dependent upon the inmate culture for his physical and emotional needs. Hebburn and Stratton (1977) maintained that the inmate subculture is a normative system the essential components of which appear to be the condemnation of the condemners, the repudiation of the legitimacy of institutional norms, staff values, and imprisoned men, a rejection of free society and an acceptance of and identification with inmates. If inmate subculture could exert a substantial force on the behavior of the individual inmate, as well as the collective behavior of inmates (as observed above by Goffman, 1961; Hebburn and Stratton, 1977; Clemmer, 1958; Aultman, 1978) then, it follows that this group could be manipulated to make a positive contribution to reformative/rehabilitative efforts. This study is geared towards filling the gap.

Furthermore, the manner in which the uniformed staff handle inmates under their custody, in view of the literature review, leaves much to be desired. Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations‘ standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners which justifies imprisonment as follows:

The treatment of persons sentenced to imprisonment or a similar measure shall have as its purpose, so as the length of the sentence permits, to establis in them the will to lead law-abiding and self-supporting lives after their release. To fit them to do so, the treatment shall be such that will encourage their self-respect and develop their sense of responsibility(section 65)

Empirical observations have shown that prisons are not handling inmates they hold hostage as required by the rules. The uniformed staff adhere to the idea that correction of inmates requires strict discipline, regimentation and punishment, all in the atmosphere of impersonality and quasi-military rigidity (Ikoh, 2011). In view of this, inmates‘ mails are censored, visitation is closely and strictly monitored, privacy is virtually nonexistent, feeding is poor, inmates appear half-naked and inmate distance is maintained through coerced deference by mass handling of inmates. Such conditions influence Alemika‘s (1987) conclusion that Nigeria‘s prisons are human warehouses and Eze and Okafor‘s (2007) opinion that the prisons are breeding grounds for criminals. If the above stated conditions really exist in the prisons, the question is: how will they be erased, especially the inhuman manner of handling inmates, in order to achieve the much desired goals of reformation and rehabilitation? The answer to the problem also lies within the boundary of this study.

1.3 Research Questions

In view of the research problem above, the research is directed towards finding answers to the following questions:

1. What treatment-approach is adopted by the uniformed staff in Nigerian prisons in handling of inmates under their custody?
2. How do the staff and the inmates conceive the reasons for imprisonment in Nigeria?
3. How are the inmates of Nigerian prisons handled ( in terms of accommodation, classification, clothing, feeding, medical care, personal hygiene, contact with the outside world, punishment labor, etc) vis-a-vis the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules (SMRs) for treatment of prisoners?

4. What is the nature of inmate subcultures in Nigerian prisons?
5. What is the inmates‘ attitude towards reformation and rehabilitation programmes?

1.4 Aims and Objectives of the Study

The aim of the study is to investigate the handling of inmates and the inmate subcultures in selected prisons in Nigeria. In order to achieve this, the following specific objectives are pursued:

1. to find out the treatment approach applied by the uniformed staff of the prisons in handling inmates in their custody;
2. to examine how both staff and inmates conceive the reasons for imprisonment in Nigeria;
3. to establish the extent to which handling of prisoners in Nigeria meets the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for treatment of prisoners;
4. to ascertain the nature of inmate subculture in Nigerian prisons; and
5. to find out inmates‘ attitude towards the reformation and the rehabilitation programmes.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The study hinges on two major variables, ―handling of inmates‖ and ―nature of inmate subculture‖. These two variables are two sides of the same coin which cannot be sidelined in any package meant for the reformation and rehabilitation of prison inmates. Inmates are human and very sensitive to the ways they are handled by uniformed staff and that invariably determines the nature and operation of their subculture. The study establishes the important link between the variables that will guide both policy makers (the National Assembly) and policy implementers(prison administrators) to create favourable prison environment needed to achieve rehabilitative model prison. Secondly, review of literature revealed that most prison studies done in Nigeria are at individual unit of analysis which lack generalization. Moreover, those that cut across prisons failed to take into consideration the different levels of prisons in the country. This multi-level prison study, hence multi-level analysis, cut across minimum, medium and maximum prisons in Nigeria. Therefore the findings are reflective of the prison situation in the country and serve as better reference. Thirdly, inmate subculture, more often than not, is seen in negative light. It is seen to be anti-prison administration and that it functions to frustrate reformation and rehabilitation goals. On the contrary, this study has established through its findings that inmate subculture, as exists in the prisons, is pro-administration in all its ramifications and brings good relationship between staff and inmates. The leaders cooperate with the prison authority and are used by it to maintain discipline, law and order in the place. In view of this, the study has found out that the inmate subculture as it operates in the prisons could be employed to achieve therapeutic environment in prison which will go a long way in addressing inmates‘ problems.

The components of the Criminal Justice System-the police, the courts and the corrections-influence one another and therefore could not be treated in isolation. The output of the police is the input of the court whose output becomes the input of the corrections. In view of these functional relationships, any sub-system that fails to discharge its responsibilities well is very likely to affect others adversely. Most of the problems of the Nigerian prisons are compounded by the police and the courts. In view of this, the study established that a holistic approach to tackling the problems of the CJS is very fundamental in solving the problems of prison.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study is focused on the treatment of inmates and formation of inmate subcultures in Nigeria prisons. In view of this, the researcher examined the treatment approach adopted by the uniformed staff, staff- inmate relationship, rehabilitation programmes and facilities in the different security prisons. Attention was paid to the indicators of inmates‘ treatment as operationalized using the United Nations recommendations. They included accommodation of inmates, separation of the inmates on the basis of sex, age, nature of offence and jail experience; inmates‘ punishment, feeding, clothing, personal hygiene, labour, education, religion and contact with the outside world. It was also within the preview of the study to examine staff and inmates‘ conceptions of the prison goals and the aftermath. The study also examined the nature of inmate subculture in the prisons. Special attention was paid to inmate leadership and inmate code which spell out the ―dos‖ and ―don‘ts‖ of the inmates and how they affected staff and inmate relationships and inmates‘ responses to reformative and rehabilitative programmes. The roles of the subculture, both to the inmates and the prison administration, were noted. Finally, the study was carried out only in three selected security prisons in the country, namely, Kuje Medium Prison Abuja, Kakuri Open Prison Camp Kaduna and Kirikiri Maximum Prison Lagos.Kuje Medium Prison and Kirikiri Maximum Prison are selected based on their location to important cities of Lagos (former capital of Nigeria) and Abuja (the Federal Capital Territory) which attract people from various parts of the country. In view of this, the prisons are bound to comprise prisoners from diverse cultures of Nigeria. Kakuri Open Prison is a minimum convict prison in terms of surveillance and control of the inmates. It is considered as a model minimum prison capable of representing satellite prisons, prison camps and prison farm settlements in the country. Only the uniformed staff of all cadres and the convicted inmates constituted the study population. The study was carried out within the time frame of six (6) weeks, from 4^th July-12^th August, 2013 (an average of two weeks in each prison).