Ekiti: Lawyers Raise Alarm Over Alleged Abuse of Form K Remand Orders

By Samuel Sunday

Some lawyers in Ekiti State have raised serious concerns over the increasing use of Form K remand proceedings, warning that the legal mechanism though provided for under the law is being allegedly abused to suppress dissent and intimidate perceived critics of the government.

The lawyers recently spoken to by Treasure Newspaper revealed that Form K is a remand order initiated by the police through an ex-parte application to a Magistrate Court under Section 264 of the Ekiti State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), 2014, as amended in 2022. 

According to the lawyers, suspects are ordered to be detained pending conclusions of police investigation, especially in cases involving serious or heinous crimes.

Speaking on the issue, Barrister Olowolafe Sunday explained that while the procedure appears unfair and seems to conflict with constitutional provisions on personal liberty and fair hearing, it is not entirely illegal or unconstitutional.

He noted that Form K operates as a request by the police to the court of first instance to enable them complete investigations that cannot reasonably be concluded within the time allowed for arraignment. 

According to Olowolafe, the courts are empowered to grant such remand orders after examining whether the police have shown probable cause.

He cited judicial authorities, including Attorney General of Lagos State vs. Keita (2016) and Hamadada vs. Nigerian Army (2024), where appellate courts affirmed the power of magistrates to remand suspects when justified by law.

However, Barrister Olowolafe warned that the current application of Form K in Ekiti State has deviated from its original intent. 

He alleged that the state government is now weaponizing the remand process to target protesters and politically exposed persons who express views contrary to government policies.

“Almost everyone recently caught in the web of Form K are protesters or individuals who have fallen out of favour,” he said.

Adding, that many cases initiated through remand proceedings eventually end in acquittal due to frivolous and unjustified arrests.

He stressed that in remand proceedings, no formal charge is read, no plea is taken, and no evidence is tested, as the court only examines whether the police request and accompanying affidavit disclose probable cause. 

Despite this, magistrates retain discretion to grant pre-remand or post-remand bail, either on application or on their own initiative, as provided under the ACJL and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

Another legal practitioner, ambukna rights activist, Barrister Taye Lawal, described Form K as controversial and fundamentally flawed, arguing that it amounts to nothing more than holding a charge under a different name.

Addressing journalists, Barrister Lawal said Form K allows the police to remand suspects without reading charges or taking pleas, thereby trivializing citizens’ liberty.

“I find Form K ridiculous and highly undemocratic. It has no place in a civilized legal system,” he said.

Although he declined to comment on specific allegations involving the arrest of an individual identified as Lustay, citing lack of familiarity with the facts.

Barrister Lawal acknowledged that the police have a long history of abusing Form K by securing remand orders while investigations linger indefinitely.

He explained that while the law does not attach a rigid time limit to remand under Form K, investigations are expected to be concluded within a reasonable period, after which courts can set aside unjustifiable remand orders or grant bail based on legal advice.

On the origin of Form K in Ekiti State, Barrister Lawal recalled that the idea emerged during the administration of former Governor Dr. Kayode Fayemi, following stakeholder retreats involving judicial officers. 

Nevertheless, he insisted that the procedure remains unsuitable for a modern criminal justice system.

Meanwhile, Barrister Adekunle, another Ekiti-based lawyer, described Form K as a complex and controversial provision under the ACJL that requires deeper legal engagement, promising to speak further on the matter at a later time.

As debates continue, legal experts insist that while the law must balance individual rights with public safety, any process that undermines constitutional liberties risks eroding public trust in the justice system.