Last week, officers of the Nigeria Police Force raided the home of politician, Chief Edwin Clark, in search of arms and ammunition. The action was based on false information received from an ‘informant’ who claims that he was acting on a tip-off by another citizen and only had the interest of Nigeria in mind when he made the report to the Police. Based on this report, some police officers swung into action and went in search of the arms and ammunition allegedly stashed away in the Abuja home of Chief Clark. Almost immediately, the Inspector-General of Police distanced the Nigeria Police Force from the ‘unauthorised’ action of his men and a delegation was dispatched to apologise to Chief Clark.
The raid on the politician’s home comes a week after the President of Nigeria stated at the Nigerian Bar Association Annual Conference that the rule of law had to take a back seat to national interest and security. This, in an apparent attempt at justifying this administration’s flouting of court orders. The implication, of course, being that the Executive alone determines what is in the national interest because the judiciary is incapable of making such determination.
Sections 214 to 216 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria provide for the Nigeria Police Force. The Police Act, however, regulates the Force. Section 4 of the Police Act provides that, ‘The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged….’
The power to prevent and detect crime does not give the Police carte blanche to violate the rights of citizens in the name of crime prevention and detection. There are guidelines and provisions of statute to ensure that suspects are treated with dignity and police investigations do not violate their rights. The courts have a supervisory role over the police in the exercise of their duties and powers. For instance, for some offences, a suspect cannot be arrested without a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate. Likewise, search of premises must be conducted with a warrant.
Sections 24(1) and (2) of the Police Act provide for arrests, with or without a warrant:
(1)In addition to the powers of arrest without warrant conferred upon a police officer by section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it shall be lawful for any police officer and any person whom he may call to his assistance, to arrest without warrant in the following cases-
(a) any person whom he finds committing any felony, misdemeanour or simple offence, or whom he reasonably suspects of having committed or of being about to commit any felony, misdemeanour or breach of the peace;
(b) any person whom any other person charges with having committed a felony or misdemeanour;
(c) any person whom any other person- (i) suspects of having committed a felony or misdemeanour; or (ii) charges with having committed a simple offence, if such other person is willing to accompany the police officer to the police station and to enter into a recognisance to prosecute such charge.
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any offence with respect to which it is provided that any offender may not be arrested without warrant.
Searches of a premises also require the approval of a judge or magistrate. The police make a complaint, stating the basis for their suspicion that unlawful activities are being carried on on the premises or material evidence is being hidden on the premises or any other reason for which they wish to enter the premises to conduct a search. The judge or magistrate assesses the complaint presented and decides whether or not to grant the request to issue a search warrant. However, there are certain circumstances where a senior police officer may authorise the search of premises. Section 28 of the Police Act provides that:
(1) A superior police officer may by authority under his hand authorise any police officer to enter any house, shop, warehouse, or other premises in search of stolen property, and search therein and seize and secure any property he may believe to have been stolen, in the same manner as he would be authorised to do if he had a search warrant, and the property seized, if any, corresponded to the property described in such search warrant.
(2) In every case in which any property is seized in pursuance of this section, the person on whose premises it was at the time of seizure or the person from whom it was taken if other than the person on whose premises it was, may, unless previously charged with receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen, be summoned or arrested and brought before a magistrate to account for his possession of such property, and such magistrate shall make such order respecting the disposal of such property and may award such costs as the justice of the case may require.
(3) Such authority as aforesaid may only be given when the premises to be searched are, or within the preceding twelve months have been, in the occupation of any person who has been convicted of receiving stolen property or of harbouring thieves, or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty, and punishable by imprisonment.
(4) It shall not be necessary on giving such authority to specify any particular property, provided that the officer granting the authority has reason to believe generally that such premises are being made a receptacle for stolen goods.
The circumstances under which a senior police officer can authorise the search of premises are clearly stated above. The circumstances are, for the most part, related to the search for stolen property. Given the above, the overzealous police officers who raided the home of Chief Clark did not act lawfully. This has already been admitted by the Inspector General of Police. These officers were in such a haste to conduct an unlawful search. Sadly, our inclusionary position on evidence encourages such action. In some jurisdictions, evidence obtained illegally is excluded in evidence unless there are compelling reasons to admit the evidence. In Nigeria, the case is reverse. It does not matter how the evidence was obtained, it will be admitted if it is relevant.
In section 29, there is a general power of arrest and search which permits what is generally known as the ‘stop and search.’ The Section provides that, ‘A police officer may detain and search any person whom he reasonably suspects of having in his possession or conveying in any manner anything which he has reason to believe to have been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained.’
I guess the police got the President’s message: Forget the rule of law.
END
Be the first to comment