When complainants become targets: The dangerous price of reporting police misconduct in Nigeria
By Okechukwu Nwanguma
A disturbing pattern deserves urgent attention in Nigeria’s police accountability system: citizens who complain about alleged police misconduct sometimes find themselves facing renewed arrest, continued detention, fresh allegations, prosecution, threats or other adverse action after seeking the intervention of human-rights organisations, oversight institutions or the media.
Three cases recently handled by the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) illustrate why this concern cannot be dismissed.
The cases involve different people, different police formations and different allegations. They should not be conflated, and none should be prejudged. But they raise a common and troubling question:
What protection does a citizen have against retaliation after complaining about the police?
The Delta case
In Delta State, Mr Peter Okwuokei complained about his treatment by officers of the State Police Command’s Anti-Kidnapping Unit.
There were allegations against Okwuokei himself which deserved investigation. Indeed, in his account to RULAAC, he admitted striking his girlfriend during an altercation. There were also allegations concerning intimate photographs of her.
RULAAC did not ask that these allegations be ignored. Our concern was different.
Okwuokei alleged that he was detained overnight, suffered an asthma attack while in custody, faced demands for money connected with his release, and had his vehicle and phones seized and retained. Documentary material supplied to RULAAC included evidence of financial transactions requiring further investigation.
When RULAAC sought the police side and subsequently raised the matter publicly, the response from the Delta State Police Public Relations Officer focused substantially on the allegations concerning the woman and her intimate images. He also accused RULAAC of being in a hurry to castigate the police.
Okwuokei was subsequently charged to court. The circumstances and sequence of events surrounding that prosecution raised a further concern: was the decision to prosecute based solely on evidence independently assessed in the ordinary course of criminal investigation, or had his complaint against the police and RULAAC’s intervention become a factor in the decision to proceed against him?
The fact that a complainant is subsequently prosecuted does not, by itself, establish retaliation. Nor should approaching RULAAC or the media protect anyone from legitimate prosecution. But where criminal charges follow closely upon a complaint of police misconduct—particularly where the complainant has alleged extortion or other wrongdoing by the same police formation—the circumstances deserve independent scrutiny.
The allegation against Okwuokei and his allegations against police officers are two separate questions.
If he assaulted a woman or unlawfully distributed her intimate images, investigate him and, where the evidence warrants, prosecute him.
But if police officers demanded or received money unlawfully, improperly retained his property or abused their authority, investigate them too.
One allegation cannot extinguish the other. And prosecution must never become an answer to a complaint against the police.
The Anambra case
A similar problem arises in the case of Ms Nwosu Chikamso Jennifer in Anambra State.
Jennifer alleged that she was detained for four days, that ₦600,000 was paid in connection with securing her release, and that her phone was seized and retained.
The Anambra State Police Command denied collecting the money. It also maintained that Jennifer was not simply arrested in place of her brother but was herself under investigation because of alleged communication with a wanted suspect and suspicion that she assisted him in evading arrest.
That police explanation deserves to be investigated on its merits. But so does Jennifer’s complaint.
The matter became particularly concerning when, after Jennifer had complained to RULAAC and the case received public attention, the police re-arrested her.
Again, being a complainant does not confer immunity from investigation. If credible evidence exists against Jennifer, the police have a duty to investigate it.
But the timing raises an unavoidable accountability question: was the subsequent police action genuinely evidence-driven, or was a complainant being subjected to retaliation for challenging police conduct and attracting public scrutiny?
That question requires an independent answer.
The Enugu case
The third case raises even more explicit allegations of retaliation.
The family of Mr Eme Alfred Friday complained about his arrest and detention by the Enugu State Police Command’s Anti-Kidnapping Squad. His brother, Sunday Eme, approached RULAAC, petitioned senior police authorities and the Police Service Commission, commenced a fundamental-rights action and publicised the matter.
According to the family’s account, the response was extraordinary.
They allege that a senior officer complained that while discussions concerning Friday’s release were taking place, the family had been writing petitions against the police.
More seriously, they allege that withdrawal of the petitions and the fundamental-rights proceedings became part of discussions surrounding his release.
The family further alleges that threats were made that if they persisted, Friday would be charged.
He was subsequently arraigned on serious allegations, including terrorism-related offences. According to documents provided to RULAAC, the prosecutorial authorities later concluded that there was no case for him to answer, and he was eventually released.
If the family’s account of the statements made by police officers is verified, this goes beyond poor complaint management. It would raise the possibility that the criminal-justice process was being invoked as leverage against people exercising their right to petition authorities and seek judicial redress.
The common thread
These three cases are not identical. Nor does the sequence of events, standing alone, prove retaliation.
But taken together, they reveal a question Nigeria’s police leadership and oversight institutions should not ignore.
In each case, allegations were made against a citizen.
In each case, the citizen or family also made allegations against police officers.
And in each case, seeking outside intervention was followed by circumstances capable of creating a perception that the complainant had become the target.
In Delta, the complainant was subsequently prosecuted after RULAAC’s intervention and public exchanges over his allegations.
In Anambra, the complainant was re-arrested after alleging extortion and attracting public attention.
In Enugu, the family alleges that withdrawal of petitions and litigation was explicitly raised in connection with the detainee’s release, followed by prosecution when they persisted.
The details differ, but the accountability problem is the same: when adverse police action follows a complaint against police officers, who independently determines whether that action is legitimate law enforcement or retaliation?
The fundamental principle should be simple:
A complaint against the police does not immunise a citizen from lawful investigation. But an allegation against a citizen does not immunise police officers from accountability. Both allegations must be investigated independently.
A woman alleging assault or unlawful publication of intimate images deserves justice. Police officers accused of extortion also deserve a fair investigation rather than automatic condemnation.
A person suspected of assisting a wanted suspect may legitimately be investigated. But that investigation cannot become a convenient answer to her allegation that police officers detained her unlawfully or collected money.
And where a family alleges that officers demanded the withdrawal of petitions or court proceedings as a condition for favourable treatment, that allegation itself requires urgent and independent investigation.
The chilling effect
The danger extends beyond the individuals involved.
Imagine the message sent to ordinary Nigerians if approaching a human-rights organisation, petitioning the Inspector-General of Police or Police Service Commission, going to court, or speaking to journalists can expose a complainant to renewed arrest, threats or prosecution.
People will simply stop complaining.
Victims will calculate that enduring extortion, brutality or arbitrary detention quietly may be safer than challenging those responsible.
That is how impunity reproduces itself.
A credible complaints system must therefore protect complainants against reprisals. Officers who are the subject of complaints should not control investigations into those complaints. And subsequent criminal allegations against complainants require heightened independent scrutiny where there are reasonable grounds to suspect retaliation.
This does not mean creating immunity for complainants. It means creating safeguards against the enormous imbalance of power that arises when the institution being accused also possesses the powers of arrest, detention and criminal investigation over its accuser.
What must change
The Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission should develop and enforce a clear non-retaliation policy protecting police complainants, witnesses and petitioners.
Where a person who has complained against officers is subsequently arrested, threatened with prosecution, prosecuted or subjected to significant adverse police action by the same officers or formation, there should be an automatic safeguard requiring independent supervisory review.
Complaints alleging retaliation should be investigated outside the implicated formation.
Where prosecution follows a complaint against police officers, there should also be sufficient institutional separation to ensure that charging decisions are based on independently assessed evidence rather than the interests of officers whose conduct has been challenged.
Police officers must understand that citizens have a lawful right to petition government authorities, approach human-rights organisations, seek judicial remedies and speak to the media. None of these actions constitutes obstruction of a legitimate police investigation.
Human-rights organisations and journalists, for their part, must remain fair. Advocacy should never become a mechanism for shielding people from legitimate investigation. Every allegation must be tested against evidence, irrespective of who makes it.
But accountability must operate in both directions.
The credibility of the Nigeria Police Force will not be strengthened by treating complainants as enemies. It will be strengthened when citizens know that they can report misconduct without fear that the machinery of law enforcement will subsequently be turned against them.
The Inspector-General of Police and the Police Service Commission should examine these cases—not merely as isolated complaints, but for what they may reveal about the treatment of citizens who challenge alleged police misconduct.
A police complaints system cannot command public confidence if making a complaint can itself become a risk factor for arrest, intimidation or prosecution.
The right to complain must never become an invitation to retaliation.
Okechukwu Nwanguma is Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC).
