When an SGBV case reaches the sentencing stage, an important part of the justice process has already taken place. The court has considered the evidence and reached a decision on guilt. But the justice process does not end with a conviction. The sentence that follows also matters.
For survivors, the sentence can shape how they understand the justice they have received. For the wider community, it can influence confidence in the justice system. For the accused, sentencing must remain grounded in law, due process and the circumstances of the case.
This is why proportionality matters.
What does proportionality mean?
In simple terms, proportionality means that the punishment imposed should appropriately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the particular case.
It does not mean that every person convicted of the same offence must receive exactly the same sentence. Cases can differ in important ways. The circumstances surrounding the offence, the applicable law and other legally relevant factors can affect the appropriate sentence.
Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act recognises this principle by requiring courts, when exercising sentencing discretion, to treat each case on its own merit. The Act also identifies sentencing objectives and requires courts to consider factors including the interests of the victim, the convict and the community, as well as relevant aggravating and mitigating information.
Proportionality therefore sits between two extremes.
On one side is the idea that every case should receive exactly the same punishment regardless of its circumstances. On the other is the idea that sentencing can vary without a clear legal basis.
Neither approach provides a strong foundation for justice.
Why does consistency matter?
Consistency is important because justice should not appear to depend entirely on where a case is heard or which judicial officer handles it.
This does not mean that judges should lose their discretion. Rather, sentencing frameworks can provide a structured basis for exercising that discretion.
The Federal Capital Territory Courts Sentencing Guidelines Practice Direction, for example, was developed with the objective of promoting uniformity in sentencing. At the same time, it expressly recognises that each case should be treated on its own merit and that the guidelines do not remove the statutory and inherent discretion of the court.
This distinction is important.
Consistency does not mean identical sentences.
It means that similar cases should be approached through clear principles, while meaningful differences between cases are properly considered.
What should be considered?
Sentencing is not simply about asking how severe a punishment should be.
The court must consider the applicable law and the circumstances that are legally relevant to sentencing. Under the ACJA, these include the objectives of sentencing, the interests of the victim, the convict and the community, previous convictions and relevant aggravating and mitigating information.
This structured approach matters particularly in SGBV cases.
The harm caused by sexual and gender-based violence should not be minimised. At the same time, sentencing decisions must remain based on evidence, applicable law and established legal principles rather than public pressure, assumptions or emotion.
That is what makes a sentencing decision both firm and fair.
Why does this matter for survivors?
For survivors, justice is not only about getting a case into court.
It is also about knowing that the harm they experienced has been taken seriously and that the justice system has responded through a lawful and credible process.
Where sentencing appears inconsistent or difficult to understand, it can affect confidence in the justice system. Clear sentencing principles can help make the process more predictable and provide a framework for explaining why a particular outcome was reached.
This matters beyond individual cases.
When justice institutions apply clear and consistent principles, they strengthen public understanding of how the system works. They also make it easier to identify when a decision may require review or when broader improvements to sentencing practice are needed.
Clear rules do not mean harsh punishment in every case
There is sometimes a temptation to measure a justice system by how severe its punishments are.
But a credible justice system cannot be built simply around imposing the harshest possible sentence in every case.
Justice requires balance.
The punishment must be lawful. It must be appropriate to the offence. Relevant circumstances must be considered. The rights of the accused must be respected. The interests of the survivor and the wider community must also be considered within the framework of the law.
This is why clear sentencing principles matter.
They help ensure that judicial discretion operates within a framework rather than becoming unpredictable.
Building confidence in justice
For SGBV survivors, communities and justice sector professionals, confidence in the system depends on more than convictions.
It depends on whether the entire process is fair, transparent, consistent and grounded in law.
Proportional sentencing contributes to that confidence by recognising the seriousness of SGBV while ensuring that sentencing decisions remain reasoned and legally defensible.
Clear rules do not weaken justice.
They help make justice more consistent, more accountable and more worthy of public trust.
Visit herstoryourstory.ng to learn more about Sexual Assault Referral Centres in Nigeria, or call 0806 429 2526 to report a case of sexual and gender-based violence.