An Abuja businessman has asked the Federal Government to investigate allegations that retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police Hilary Opara tried to influence how he was treated at Kuje Custodial Centre. The complaint raises urgent questions about detainee protection, private influence over correctional officers and the enforcement of Nigeria’s anti-torture laws.
An allegation that a retired senior police officer attempted to have a detainee tortured inside a federal custodial centre has placed Nigeria’s correctional safeguards under fresh scrutiny.
Abuja businessman David Nwokorie has petitioned the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, alleging that retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police Hilary Opara sought to influence correctional officers at Kuje Medium Security Custodial Centre to subject him to solitary confinement, deny him access to medical care and restrict his contact with his lawyers and family.
In the petition dated 9 October 2026, Nwokorie’s lawyers, Y. J. Imam & Co., asked the Federal Government to initiate an investigation and take urgent measures to protect their client, who remains in custody over a criminal case before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The ministry received the petition on 12 October. It was addressed to Fagbemi, with particular attention to the Secretary of the National Committee Against Torture (NCAT).
The allegations have not been established by an independent investigation or a court finding presented in the material reviewed for this report. Opara’s alleged actions must therefore be distinguished from proven misconduct.
But the complaint raises a broader public-interest question: who controls the treatment of a person in custody when a relative of the nominal complainant is alleged to have approached correctional officers?
Petition Alleges Attempt to Impose Solitary Confinement
The petition identifies the underlying criminal proceedings as Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/128/2025, Inspector-General of Police v. David Nwokorie.
According to the lawyers, Nwokorie and his family began receiving information in July 2026 that a very senior retired police officer had allegedly contacted personnel at Kuje in an attempt to influence the conditions of his detention.
The lawyers said correctional officers subsequently informed their client that the retired officer had allegedly attempted to influence his treatment.
The reported instructions, according to the petition, included placing Nwokorie in solitary confinement or a special punishment cell, denying him medical care, stopping food brought by his family from reaching him, restricting access to his lawyers and subjecting him to harsh treatment to teach him a lesson while his criminal case remained pending.
The petition states:
“Since July, 2026 some Officers of the Custodial Centre informed Our Client that a ‘very senior retired Police officer’ had approached them and attempted to influence them to: place Our Client in solitary confinement/special punishment cell; deny him access to medical care, food brought by family and legal counsel; subject him to harsh and degrading treatment to ‘teach him a lesson’ pending trial.”
The lawyers alleged that a correctional officer on duty directly informed Nwokorie of the purported approach but refused to comply with the alleged instructions.
They said the attempt, even though it was allegedly not fully executed, had caused their client substantial distress.
The petition states that the alleged events had “caused Our Client severe psychological torture, fear, anxiety and apprehension that his life is in danger in custody.”
That claim requires careful examination. Psychological distress can be serious, but the allegation that a particular person sought to inflict it remains a matter for investigators to establish.
The petition does not, by itself, demonstrate that Opara made the alleged communication, that any instructions were issued or that correctional personnel acted on them.
What Investigators Must Establish
The central challenge is to move the allegation beyond competing accounts and establish what, if anything, happened.
Nwokorie’s lawyers said their client was prepared to provide a sworn statement and information to assist the inquiry, including the names of correctional officers allegedly contacted and relevant telephone or visitor records.
An effective investigation would need to establish the identity of the person who allegedly contacted the facility, the recipient of the communication, the date and time, the substance of any instructions and whether any officer acted on them.
Investigators should also examine available call records, visitor registers, internal communications, incident reports and other relevant records. Where legally available and properly preserved, such material could help corroborate or contradict witness accounts.
Telephone records could establish that a call occurred, but would not, on their own, prove what was said. Investigators would need to compare them with testimony and any other reliable evidence.
The lawyers asked the Attorney-General to direct the National Committee Against Torture to investigate and invite the retired officer for questioning.
They also requested that the Controller-General of the Nigerian Correctional Service guarantee Nwokorie’s safety and prevent unauthorised interference with his treatment.
Other demands include independent medical evaluation, unhindered access to legal counsel, appropriate family contact and disciplinary action against any correctional officer found to have facilitated unlawful interference.
The lawyers further asked the Attorney-General to consider issuing guidance against retired police officers obtaining unsupervised access to inmates or attempting to direct correctional personnel outside lawful procedures.
They requested that the Inspector-General of Police caution Opara against further interference, and that anyone against whom sufficient evidence of criminal conduct is established be prosecuted.
The petition sought intervention within 48 hours, citing fears for Nwokorie’s safety.
What Nigerian Law Says About Torture in Custody
Nigeria’s legal framework prohibits torture and protects the dignity of people in detention.
Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution provides that no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The protection applies to people awaiting trial as well as other detainees.
The Anti-Torture Act, 2017, is more specific about the conduct that may constitute torture.
Section 2 covers the intentional infliction of physical or mental suffering for purposes that include punishment or intimidation, where the statutory conditions concerning the involvement of a public official or a person acting in an official capacity are met. Its definition also identifies certain forms of psychological torture, including confinement in solitary cells. Section 3 prohibits justifying torture by invoking exceptional circumstances and addresses solitary confinement where torture may be carried out.
The Act also addresses responsibility for torture. Section 8 provides for liability for people who participate in torture and for specified superior officers or senior government officials who issue orders to subordinate personnel to torture a victim. Section 9 provides for penalties for torture offences, including imprisonment for up to 25 years on conviction under the provision. Whether those provisions apply to the conduct alleged against Opara would depend on evidence and the relevant legal findings.
A critical distinction remains: an allegation that a person sought to procure mistreatment is not proof that the person made the request or that every element of an offence has been established.
The petition also invokes the Nigerian Correctional Service Act, 2019. A review of that Act reveals a citation that requires correction or clarification.
Section 26 establishes the Correctional Officers’ Reward Fund. It is not the provision that sets out the Service’s duty to provide humane custody or medical care. Section 10(b) identifies safe, secure and humane custody as a function of the Custodial Service, while sections 23 to 25 address healthcare, mental health and the transfer of seriously ill inmates for treatment.
That distinction does not remove the substantive protections available to inmates. It means the statutory arguments should accurately identify the provisions that support them.
The Correctional Service’s obligation to provide lawful custody cannot be displaced by a private individual’s wishes or personal relationship with a complainant. At the same time, the existence of a legal prohibition does not determine whether the alleged conduct occurred in this case.
Earlier Petition Raised Similar Allegations
The October complaint is not the first time Nwokorie has sought an investigation into alleged interference with his treatment at Kuje.
SaharaReporters reported on 23 September 2026 that Nwokorie had submitted an earlier petition to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), alleging that Opara contacted a correctional official on or about 20 July and sought to influence how he was treated in custody.
In that earlier complaint, Nwokorie alleged that the caller sought to have him chained, tortured, humiliated or intimidated. He said the correctional official did not comply and subsequently informed him of the purported communication.
Nwokorie quoted the official as saying:
“The father of the nominal complainant called me and asked me to … ‘treat your f***-up.’”
A correctional official quoted in earlier reporting also said:
“We were shocked by the request. We simply told him not to worry, but that does not mean anybody agreed to carry out what he allegedly wanted.”
These quotations are attributed accounts, not independent proof of the alleged call. Their significance depends on whether the persons involved can be identified, interviewed and corroborated through evidence.
In his earlier complaint, Nwokorie asked authorities to preserve telephone records, call logs, available closed-circuit television footage, visitor records and internal communications.
He also urged investigators not to assume that every relative of the nominal complainant was involved simply because of family connections.
“The fact that a person is related to a complainant cannot itself establish liability,” he said in the earlier complaint.
He added: “Equally, a family relationship should not prevent an investigation where specific allegations of unlawful interference have been made.”
The two petitions now present authorities with an opportunity to establish whether there is evidence of a specific act of interference, rather than relying on rumour, family association or repeated allegations.
Dispute Stems From Criminal Case and Former Relationship
The allegations against Opara are part of a wider dispute involving Nwokorie, his former partner Genevieve Nneoma Opara and the police.
The criminal case against Nwokorie includes allegations relating to cyberstalking, cyberbullying, blackmail and threats to life. Those allegations remain distinct from his complaint about treatment in custody.
In April 2025, SaharaReporters reported that Nwokorie had been arrested following a complaint by Genevieve Opara. At the time, she said he was being detained over allegations including blackmail, cyberbullying and threats to life, and referred the publication to her lawyer because the matter was before a court. Her lawyer declined to discuss the substance of the proceedings.
In a separate fundamental-rights suit, Nwokorie alleged that he and Genevieve Opara co-founded the Genieve and David Empowerment Foundation in 2024 and later entered a relationship.
He claimed that, after the relationship broke down, an incident occurred at his home in January 2025 involving damaged property and missing valuables. He said he subsequently sought compensation.
These claims about the relationship and the alleged incident are matters of dispute. They do not establish the truth or otherwise of the complaint concerning Kuje.
Nwokorie filed a fundamental-rights action against the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector-General of Police, the Police Service Commission and Genevieve Opara, seeking ₦100 million in damages over his arrest and detention. The action is separate from the criminal proceedings against him.
The distinction is important. Neither an unresolved criminal allegation against Nwokorie nor the dispute involving his former partner would justify torture or other unlawful treatment if the alleged conduct were established.
Equally, the existence of the dispute cannot be used as proof that Opara attempted to influence his treatment.
Bail Conditions Raise a Separate Question
Nwokorie has also challenged the circumstances surrounding his continued detention after a reported bail ruling.
His earlier petition said Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court granted him bail on 14 July 2026, but that he remained in custody because of stringent conditions, including a requirement for a serving Nigerian Army colonel to stand as surety.
The October petition states that he remains at Kuje pending determination of his application to vary the bail conditions.
The terms of the order, the status of the application and the reasons the conditions have not been satisfied should be verified against certified court records. The allegations concerning Opara should not be conflated with the separate legal question of whether the bail conditions are lawful or whether the order has been implemented properly.
Nwokorie previously described a bail order as “a judicial instrument”, arguing that its implementation should follow the law and the court’s directions, “not by personal influence, private retaliation or the wishes of a complainant’s relative”.
That is his position. Establishing whether any person attempted to frustrate the order would require evidence separate from the allegations about the alleged call to Kuje.
The detention chronology also warrants clarification. Earlier reporting records Nwokorie’s arrest in April 2025, while the latest petition says he has been in custody since February 2026. The available material does not fully explain the intervening custody history. The relevant remand orders, any release or re-arrest records, the charge sheet and the certified bail ruling would help establish a clear timeline.
The Federal Government Must Establish the Facts
The latest petition was copied to the Controller-General of the Nigerian Correctional Service, the Inspector-General of Police, the Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Commission and the Chairman of the Police Service Commission.
The material reviewed for this report does not include a formal response to the October petition from Opara or the agencies named in it.
The appropriate response is not to pronounce anyone guilty before an investigation. It is to establish the facts, protect the detainee from any credible risk of retaliation and ensure that witnesses can speak without fear.
The National Human Rights Commission has a mandate to receive and investigate complaints concerning alleged human-rights violations. The Nigerian Correctional Service is also responsible for providing safe, secure and humane custody. Those responsibilities make an evidence-led inquiry essential.
Investigators should determine whether the alleged communication occurred, what was said, who was involved and whether any action followed. They should also establish whether Nwokorie’s medical needs and access to counsel have been met, without allowing the pending criminal case to prejudice his treatment.
If the allegations are substantiated, the responsible authorities should take lawful action. If they are not, the investigation should establish that too.
The decisive issue is not whether a retired police officer is related to a complainant, or whether a detainee is facing serious allegations. It is whether Nigeria’s custodial system operates according to law rather than private pressure.
Kuje’s test is straightforward: the evidence must determine what happened, and the law must determine what follows.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.