Comparative Analysis of Gender Discrimination in Bail Suretyship in Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya: A Review of Ken Nwafor v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (2021)

Abstract

Male sureties are often preferred in bail proceedings across many African criminal justice systems, including Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya. This preference persists despite the lack of explicit legal provisions preventing women from assuming this role. This practice is rooted in cultural biases that view women as the ‘weaker sex’, which is reflected in legal practices. This case review examines the legal implications of denying women the right to act as sureties, focusing on the Nigerian case of Ken Nwafor v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (2021). It draws comparative lessons from the legal frameworks of Ghana and Kenya. The review argues that gender-based discrimination, notably the denial of women’s rights to serve as sureties, is both unconstitutional and illegal, as it infringes upon fundamental rights. The constitutions of Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya do not support gender inequality, and no international law or statute prohibits women from serving as sureties. The review adopts a doctrinal approach to emphasise the need for concrete evidence to demonstrate discriminatory practices. It calls for legal reforms that ensure gender equality and rejects the notion that gender should influence legal rights or responsibilities. It advocates for enacting stronger legal frameworks alongside grassroots advocacy and awareness campaigns regarding gender equality. The review concludes with recommendations to eliminate gender-based discrimination in the criminal justice systems of these countries, ensuring equal treatment for all individuals, regardless of gender.