The Question the Anambra Police still need to answer: Where is Jennifer?
By Okechukwu Nwanguma
There is a fundamental distinction between investigating a citizen for an alleged offence and using the seriousness of a criminal investigation to avoid answering legitimate questions about police conduct.
That distinction lies at the heart of the troubling case of Ms. Nwosu Chikamso Jennifer and the Anambra State Police Command.
The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has never argued that the police should not investigate murder, cult-related killings or anyone reasonably suspected of helping a wanted person evade arrest. If credible evidence exists that Jennifer committed an offence, the police have both the authority and responsibility to investigate her and, where the evidence warrants it, bring her before a court.
But that is not the end of the matter.
The police allegation against Jennifer does not extinguish the allegations Jennifer herself made against police officers. Nor does it answer the increasingly urgent question arising from this case:
Where is Nwosu Chikamso Jennifer, what is her present legal status, and can she speak freely and independently about what happened to her?
How the controversy began
Jennifer contacted RULAAC on 6 September 2026 with a disturbing account.
She said she had been arrested on 31 August by operatives of the Rapid Response Squad at Awkuzu while the police were searching for her brother, Nwosu Kenechukwu, reportedly wanted in connection with a murder investigation.
She alleged that she was detained for four days and repeatedly required to produce her brother. She also stated in writing that ₦600,000 was paid on 3 September before she was released on what she described as administrative bail, without a receipt or acknowledgement.
She further alleged that her telephone was seized without a property receipt.
These were allegations. RULAAC treated them as such.
We did not pronounce the police guilty. We contacted the Anambra State Police Command and asked that the allegations be investigated and clarified.
Subsequent public reporting confirmed the competing accounts. The Police Command denied demanding or collecting ₦600,000 and maintained that Jennifer was not arrested simply because she was her brother’s sister. According to the Command, investigators had information that she assisted her brother in evading arrest.
That is a serious allegation. It deserves investigation.
But it does not dispose of Jennifer’s allegations.
Two different questions must not be conflated
The controversy now involves two separate sets of allegations.
The first concerns Jennifer’s alleged conduct: did she knowingly assist a person wanted by the police to evade arrest? The Command has gone further, stating that investigators have information indicating that Jennifer communicated with her brother on the night of the incident and allegedly alerted him that the police were closing in.
If that evidence exists, let it be investigated according to law. Jennifer should be informed of the precise allegation against her, allowed access to counsel and given the opportunity to answer it. If sufficient evidence establishes an offence, the proper destination is a court of law.
The second question concerns the conduct of police officers: was Jennifer initially detained merely to pressure her into producing her brother? Was ₦600,000 paid in connection with her release? If money changed hands, who received it and for what purpose? Why was no receipt allegedly issued? What happened to her telephone? And were proper custody, bail and property records maintained?
The police allegation against Jennifer cannot logically answer those questions.
A suspect can commit an offence and still have her rights violated by police.
Likewise, police officers can possess legitimate evidence against a suspect while allegations of misconduct against those officers still require investigation.
Accountability requires us to be capable of holding both propositions in our minds at the same time.
Arrest in lieu is expressly prohibited
Nigerian law is particularly clear about arresting one person as a substitute for another.
Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 states plainly that a person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect. Section 36 of the Police Act 2020 contains the same prohibition.
That does not mean relatives of wanted persons enjoy immunity from investigation.
If the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that a relative independently committed an offence – by destroying evidence, obstructing investigators, harbouring a suspect where the law criminalises the particular conduct, or otherwise participating in criminal activity – that person may be investigated for his or her own alleged conduct.
That is fundamentally different from arresting someone to compel another person to surrender.
This distinction is important because the Police Command initially said Jennifer was released after undertaking to cooperate with investigators and assist efforts to locate her brother.
That explanation itself deserves scrutiny.
A citizen may be required to cooperate with a lawful investigation within the limits prescribed by law. But the liberty of one person cannot become security for the production of another.
*The ₦600,000 allegation cannot simply be declared a distraction*
The latest police response raises another concern.
The Command has described the allegation concerning ₦600,000 as a diversionary attempt to distract the police from their investigation.
That framing is unfortunate.
An allegation that money was collected in connection with police bail is not inherently a distraction from law enforcement. It is itself an accountability question requiring investigation.
Jennifer expressly told RULAAC in writing before returning to RRS Awkuzu:
“The sum of ₦600,000 was paid for my administrative bail on 3rd September, 2026, but I was not issued any receipt or acknowledgment.”
The Police Command categorically denies that it demanded or collected the money. Public reporting has documented both sides of this dispute.
There is therefore a factual conflict.
The appropriate response to such a conflict should not be institutional indignation. It should be investigation.
Who processed Jennifer’s bail?
Which officers handled her custody?
What do the station diary and custody records show?
Was any money transferred or handed over? If so, to whom?
What bail documentation was completed?
If the allegation is false, an independent examination of these records should help establish that.
If money changed hands without lawful authority, the same process should identify those responsible.
That is what accountability means.
Then came an even more disturbing development
Jennifer informed RULAAC that she had been directed to return to RRS Awkuzu on 7 September. She expressed fear that she could be detained again. She nevertheless indicated that she would honour the invitation with her lawyer and promised to update RULAAC afterwards.
That was the last direct communication we received from her.
Her telephone subsequently became unreachable.
In discussions with the Anambra State Police Command, RULAAC was informed that the Commissioner of Police had ordered her rearrest.
We were also told that Jennifer had denied, in the presence of her lawyer, telling RULAAC that ₦600,000 had been demanded or obtained in connection with her earlier release.
That alleged denial is difficult to reconcile with the written communications voluntarily sent to RULAAC before she returned to the police.
This contradiction should not be resolved by RULAAC declaring Jennifer’s earlier account true or by the Police Command declaring her alleged subsequent denial conclusive.
There is a much simpler solution.
Allow Jennifer to speak independently.
Let her speak confidentially with her lawyer, family and, if she wishes, RULAAC, outside the presence or control of officers whose conduct forms part of her complaint.
Let us hear directly from her whether she stands by her earlier written account.
If she withdraws it freely, that fact will be important.
If she maintains it, that too will be important.
What is unacceptable is a situation in which the police tell the public what a complainant allegedly said while independent access to the complainant remains uncertain.
Who is her lawyer?
The Command says Jennifer was interrogated in the presence of her lawyer and that she made certain statements in that lawyer’s presence. The police have also publicly said that investigators possess information contradicting part of her account.
RULAAC has therefore asked a straightforward question:
Who is this lawyer?
Can the lawyer independently confirm being present?
Can the lawyer confirm Jennifer’s current legal status and whether she is able to communicate freely?
These questions are particularly important because the person at the centre of the dispute has herself become inaccessible to those who were communicating with her before she returned to the police.
Seeking help from a human-rights organisation is not betrayal
There is another dimension that should concern every Nigerian who believes in accountable policing.
During communication over this matter, RULAAC was told, in substance, that Jennifer had “betrayed” the police by bringing her complaint to our organisation.
That conception of police-citizen relations is deeply problematic.
A citizen does not betray the police by complaining about the police.
Approaching a lawyer, civil society organisation, National Human Rights Commission, Police Complaints Response Unit, media organisation or court is an exercise of citizenship, not an act of disloyalty.
The police are a public institution, not a private fraternity to which citizens owe silence.
Indeed, a professional police institution should welcome credible complaints because complaints provide an opportunity to identify misconduct, correct institutional weaknesses and distinguish responsible officers from those who abuse their authority.
Accountability is not hostility to the police. It is one of the foundations of legitimate policing.
Murder investigations and human rights are not competing objectives
There is a dangerous assumption that often enters public debate whenever allegations of police misconduct arise during investigations into serious crimes.
We are told, implicitly or explicitly, that because murder, kidnapping, armed robbery or cult violence is serious, human-rights concerns should wait.
That is precisely backwards.
The more serious the allegation, the more important lawful procedure becomes.
A murder investigation conducted according to law is stronger, not weaker. Evidence obtained professionally is more likely to survive judicial scrutiny. Suspects treated according to constitutional standards cannot credibly claim that the investigative process itself was merely an exercise in intimidation or vengeance.
Conversely, shortcuts can compromise otherwise legitimate investigations.
RULAAC therefore makes no defence whatsoever of anyone involved in murder or cult-related violence. The victims of those crimes deserve justice. Their families deserve competent investigation. Anyone against whom sufficient admissible evidence exists should face prosecution.
But justice for one victim cannot be constructed upon injustice to another citizen.
The police can resolve this controversy
This matter does not require endless exchanges of press statements.
The Anambra State Police Command can resolve much of the controversy through transparency.
It should clarify Jennifer’s present whereabouts and legal status; disclose the specific offence for which she was rearrested, if indeed she was rearrested; confirm whether she has been brought before a court; facilitate unrestricted and confidential access to counsel and family; identify the lawyer said to have been present during her alleged denial; investigate independently the alleged ₦600,000 payment; account for her telephone and relevant property documentation; and guarantee that no adverse action will be taken against her merely for approaching RULAAC.
None of these steps would compromise a legitimate murder investigation. On the contrary, they would strengthen public confidence in it.
The larger issue is institutional credibility
This case is bigger than Jennifer.
It raises a recurring question about policing in Nigeria: when a citizen alleges misconduct against police officers, who investigates the allegation?
The officers themselves?
Their unit?
Their Command?
And when the institution simply issues a denial, is that denial supposed to conclude the matter?
It cannot.
Police accountability requires credible mechanisms capable of examining allegations independently of the officers or formations implicated.
That is particularly important where the complainant subsequently returns to the custody or control of the same institution against which she complained.
RULAAC is not asking anyone to prejudge Jennifer’s allegation against the police.
Neither should anyone prejudge the police allegation against Jennifer.
Investigate both.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.
If Jennifer assisted her brother to evade lawful arrest, let the evidence be presented and the law take its course.
If police officers collected ₦600,000 unlawfully, let that allegation also be investigated and those responsible held accountable.
These propositions are not contradictory. They are what the rule of law demands.
And until the person at the centre of this controversy can be independently reached, one question remains more urgent than all the competing press statements:
Where is Nwosu Chikamso Jennifer?
Can she speak freely?
And what does she herself now say happened?
Those questions deserve clear answers.
Okechukwu Nwanguma is Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC).
