Strip searches in prison: after the ban, the challenge of effectiveness (By Mouhamadou Moustapha DIAGNE)

In a service note dated August 10, 2026, the Director General of the Penitentiary Administration put an end to systematic strip searches in prisons. This measure represents a significant step forward in protecting the dignity of detainees in Senegal.

It is important to clarify, however, that this decision does not call into question the search itself, which remains necessary for the security of establishments and the prevention of the introduction of dangerous or prohibited items. Rather, it puts an end to its systematically strip-search nature and reserves the strip search for exceptional situations justified by a specific presumption of an offense or a proven security risk, and only if pat-downs of underwear prove insufficient.

This measure deserves to be commended. It addresses a long-standing concern of Amnesty International, which has regularly drawn attention to detention practices and conditions that can infringe upon the dignity of people deprived of their liberty. The National Observatory of Places of Deprivation of Liberty (ONLPL), the national mechanism for the prevention of torture, had also recommended improving search conditions. As early as 2013, it advocated, in particular, the provision of equipment to prevent violations of dignity resulting from strip searches.

The note also gives effect to Senegal's international commitments. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that everyone deprived of their liberty be treated humanely and with respect for their dignity. The Nelson Mandela Rules specify that searches must adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality, and that intrusive body searches should only be conducted when absolutely necessary. They also encourage the use of appropriate alternative methods.

The prison administration now faces the challenge of ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of this measure. It must take all necessary steps to prevent its application from differing from one institution to another, or to ensure that the exception provided for in the directive does not ultimately become the rule in practice.

In the short term, a simple monitoring mechanism could be established: each institution would maintain a register of exceptional strip searches, specifying the reason for the search, the authority that ordered it, and its outcome. This information could be subject to periodic review by the Prison Administration and made accessible to the National Observatory for the Fight Against Torture (ONLPL) as part of its duties. This system would also meet the traceability requirement stipulated by the Nelson Mandela Rules.

In the longer term, the prison administration will need to develop less intrusive detection methods. Ghana's experience in this regard is worth considering. The Ghana Prisons Service has notably established a canine unit to enhance the detection of prohibited items and substances in prisons. Without necessarily replicating this model exactly, Senegal could gradually increase its use of metal detectors, metal detectors, canine units, and, when resources allow, body scanners.

The issue is not to pit prison security against human rights, but to guarantee the former while minimizing any infringement on the dignity and privacy of detainees. The note of August 10th represents progress. The challenge now is to make it a sustainable practice in all prisons in Senegal.

Mouhamadou Moustapha DIAGNE,

lawyer specializing in international human rights law,

doctoral candidate in public law