Over time, the police have been accused of arbitrary arrest and detention of citizens, without regard to their fundamental rights. In most cases, the ‘suspects’ are clamped into police cells, if they are unable to meet the monetary demand by the police for their release and would not be charged to court as well. Senior Correspondent, ONYEWUCHI OJINNAKA, dissects the issue based on what the law says.
Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 26 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 24 of the Police Act empower the police to arrest without warrant. However, the sections empower the police to arrest a suspect of criminal offence, but not to detain or confine the person indefinitely. It then behoves that the exercise of power of arrest with or without warrant conferred on the police by the provisions of the law calls for the highest degree of responsibility, discipline and circumspection on the part of the police.
Besides, to check the abuse of power to arrest by the police, Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, states that “officers in charge of police stations shall report, to the nearest magistrate, cases of all persons arrested without warrant within the limits of their respective stations, whether such persons have been admitted to bail or not”.
Unfortunately, many policemen and officers regard the powers without warrant to arrest as a licence for abuse of office and a statutory enablement for the breach of the fundamental rights of the citizens.
It is common knowledge that policemen arbitrarily exercise power of arrest without warrant, purposefully to extort money. It is a situation that if someone is arrested on a flimsy alleged offence, it is either the person ‘settles’ (bribes) or finds himself in police cells and remains there idefinitely.
Despite that the colonial law prohibiting wandering has been scrapped, the Nigeria police still raid areas they see as ‘dark spots’ to arrest innocent citizens, just for the purpose of extorting money from them, or clamp them into detention if the ‘settlement’ fails.
In as much as the law empowers the police to arrest, the same law says that suspects should not be detained longer than necessary. They should be detained within a reasonable period or be charged to a court of competent jurisdiction. The right to personal liberty of every citizen is guaranteed by Section 35 of the constitution.
For the purpose of clarity, Section 35(4) of the constitution states that “any person who is arrested or detained for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal offence, shall be brought before a court of law within a reasonable time”.
The same Section 35(4) of the constitution defines ‘a reasonable time’ as a period of one day in the case of arrest or detention in any place where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of 40 kilometres, and in other case, a period of two days (48 hours) or such longer period as may be considered by the court to be reasonable.
Consequent upon the above constitutional provision, those arrested and detained without any justifiable reason and others justifiably arrested who do not have the means to ‘settle’ the police are charged to court by the police, most times for serious but spurious offences.
In some cases, rather than be released from police custody, an innocent person, who does not have the means to pay his way out from detention, is simply slammed with trumped up charges, the police believing that if such person is released from detention without preferment of charge in court, the person may institute an action against the police for unlawful detention.
The consequence of these arbitrary arrests, detention and charges is that many people are brought before the court and thereafter remanded in prisons, if denied bail or if they fail to perfect the bail conditions if admitted to bail, whereas there is no basis for them to be charged to court in the first instance.
Stating his position on the issue of arbitrary arrest by the police, a Lagos-based lawyer, Chidi Nwuke, said that the police have constructional power to effect arrest if there is every substantial reason to do so, but it is absolutely wrong for indiscriminate arrest of citizens by the police on unsubstantiated reasons. He added that the fundamental right is a constitutional provision which should not be infringed upon by the police.
The constitution is very clear on the fundamental rights, and people should not be unnecessarily arrested and detained, he said.
“The police abuse these rights. They should not just arrest people indiscriminately. They are expected to do a thorough investigation down to the actual suspect. Unfortunately, the police is lacking in this regard.”
According to Nwuke, they (police) arrest indiscriminately and start demanding money from ‘suspects’ for their release, thereby encouraging bribery and corruption. He added that the police must be sure that there is a reasonable basis for such an arrest, stressing that it is wrong for the police to breach the constitutional right of citizens.
“It is an abuse of power by the police,” he said.
Another Lagos lawyer, Chijike Jakponna, said the arbitrary arrest and detention of citizens by the police is not proper. For him, what propels the action of the police is that the “Nigeria police always intend to achieve selfish interest in their duties”.
The court had some time ago made a categorical pronouncement on the issue of arbitrary arrests and detention. In the ruling delivered by Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court, Lagos, on the enforcement of fundamental rights filed by one Manasseh Zorto, he lambasted the police for arbitrary abuse of its powers to arrest and detain persons suspected of committing a crime, without regards to the provision of the law on arrest and detention.
The judge decried the attitude of the police, saying that rather than carrying out its duties with utmost ‘care’, the police ‘cage’ those they are meant to ensure their freedom and security.
“The police must carry out their duties with care. They are not meant to harass, intimidate and cage the innocent citizens they are meant to protect,” Yunusa said.
Zorto, a businessman, had filed a fundamental rights suit against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Commissioner of Police, Special Fraud Unit (SFU), former Defence Minister and other police officers in connection with his arrest and detention.
In his ruling, Justice Yunusa described the warrant of arrest with which Zorto was arrested as inferior, adding that it was issued by an incompetent court which had no jurisdiction.
“The respondents refused to follow the laid down procedure. They acted rashly and impetuously. Non-compliance with the law makes the steps taken by the respondents unconstitutional, null and void,” the judge declared.
According to the judge, “the police have no right to seize or withdraw any citizen’s international passport. He affirms that only the Minister of Interior can do so in line with the provisions of law.
The most common abuse of power perpetrated by the police is arrest and detention, the judge said, declaring that such action is a gross violation of the citizen’s fundamental human rights as guaranteed by Section 35 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).