By Ukashatu Ibrahim

Introduction

In a society based on rule of law, actions of individuals, government and agencies, must be in accordance with relevant laws which in turn, must conform with the dictate of the constitution. The Nigeria Police is no exception, its actions and inactions must be within the enclave of the law regulating their constitutional duties.

This article intends to statutorily scrutinize section 4 of the Police Act Cap19 LFN, 2004 (herein after referred to as the Act), juxtaposing same with the act of intermeddling with civil disputes by the Police, and come up with a finding on the validity or otherwise of the said actions of the Police.

The Nigerian Police Force is established vide section 214 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. It states:

‘There shall be a Police Force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this section, no other Police Force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.”

Sub-section 2 of the same section, provides for its general duties. Thus:

“subject to the provision of this Constitution –

(a) The Nigeria Police Force shall be organized and administered in accordance with such provision as may be prescribed by the Act of the National Assembly (italized for emphasis);

(b) The members of the Nigeria Police Force shall have such powers and duties as may be conferred upon them by law” (emphasis);

Pursuant to the above provision, the Act, vide section 4, set out the duties of the Police. It states:

“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, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other Act.”

Going by the plain wordings of the provision, even a layman can boldly interpret and bring out the purport of the provision, but in order not to run faster than our shadows, it is safe to call on the court, being the exclusive Arm saddled with the responsibility of interpreting provisions of the law, to interpret the above section.

Thus, the Court of Appeal, in its interpretative jurisdiction, held in CHRISTLIEB PLC & ORS v ADEMOLA MAJEKODUNMI & ORS (2008) LPELR-8453 (CA) that:

“By virtue of Section 4 of the Police Act, Cap 359, Laws of the Federation, 1990, the duties of the Police include amongst others the prevention and detection of crime, 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.”

Commenting on the duties of the Police and how such duties are carried out, the Court of Appeal in REV. PAUL ENANUGA & ORS v. HON. NSEABASI (CORNELIUS) Sampson (2012) LPELR-8487(CA), had this to say:

“By virtue of Section 4 of Police Act, Cap 19 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the Police has the duty and responsibility to prevent crime, to detect crime and preserve law and order among others. These duties are carried out within the exclusive discretion of the police. Where a crime is reported it is within the discretionary powers of the police to decide whether to investigate such a crime and the manner in which to conduct such investigation. See Fawehinmi vs. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606.” Per AKEJU, J.C.A. (P. 18, paras. C-E).

The Apex court is not left out in the interpretation of section 4 of the Police Act 2004. Hence, in KAREEM OLATINWO v. THE STATE (2013) LPELR-19979(SC), it held ( Per Aka’ahs, JSC at pg 7 of the e-report), thus:

“Section 4 of the Police Act stipulates 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….”

From the holdings of the courts in respect of section 4 of the Act above, it is established that, interfering with civil disputes, is not within the powers of the Police as contemplated by the Act.

In fact, Salami, J.C.A.( as he then was), stated that “I am unable to see a provision providing for or empowering police to enforce contract or collect common debts”. See KEN McLAREN & ORS v. JAMES LLOYD JENNINGS (2002) LPELR-5784(CA).

It is elementary law that contracts and collection of debts are civil in nature! The law is that, public officers should exercise their functions and powers, within the purview of the Act/law creating such functions and powers.

This has found expression in the case of REPUBLIC BANK PLC v CBN (1998) 13 NWLR pt 581 @ 306. The Court of Appeal held that “The public officers are under a duty to exercise their powers within the precinct of an enabling statute.”

How does the Court react, when a case involving police meddling with civil matters between individuals, is brought before it?

The courts always frown at the act of police assuming jurisdiction to hear and solve civil matters. See the cases of ANOGWIE & ORS v. ODOM & ORS (2016)LPELR-40214(CA) and OGBONNA v OGBONNA (2014) LPELR-22308.

Concurring with the lead judgement of Mbaba, J.C.A., in Anogwie v Odom (supra) on the triteness of the law that once an allegation of violation of Fundamental Rights is proved, award of damages and even apology naturally follow, Frederick Oziakphon Oho J.CA., warned that:

“To make matters rather worse, the invitation of the police to intervene in a matter that is purely civil in nature cannot be justified under any circumstances. The duties of the Police as provided under Section 4 of the POLICE ACT, CAP 359 LFN 1990, does not include settlement of civil disputes or the collection of debts or enforcement of civil agreements between individuals. See MACLARENCE vs. JENNINGS (2003) 3 NWLR (PT.808) 470. See also the case of AFRIBANK PLC v ONYIMA (2004) 4 NWLR (pt. 858) 654.”

The learned Justice continued:

“The mere fact that the police are usually invited into just about every matter under the sun is no justification to get the police involved in there solution of civil disputes. The police has recently held itself out as a responsible law enforcement organization should be seen to live up to its billings in quickly to turning down matters not statutorily assigned to it so as to avoid embarrassments of matters of this nature. There are usually dire consequences at every turn of event, in the event of things of this nature happening. The position is and has always been that the private individual who uses the police to settle a private score, would himself be liable for the wrongful act of the police. See the case of NKPA vs.NKUME (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.710) 543 and a host of other decided cases on the subject.”

There are legion of case laws on this issue, for ease of reference, see the cases of NZEGBUNA & ANOR v. OKOYE&ANOR(2018)LPELR-43943(CA), OGAN v. C.O.P RIVERS STATE&ORS(2018)LPELR-44293(CA), SKYE BANK v. NJOKU & ORS (2016) LPELR-40447(CA).

In CLIMAX HOTEL NIG LTD & ANOR v VENITEE GLOBAL NIG LTD (2019) LPELR-47103 (CA). A case that involved a contract of lease between the appellants and the respondents. The appellants, contrary to the terms of the lease, evicted the respondents and used the machinery of the police to obtain the rentals (which was not due) by illegally arresting and unlawfully detaining the 2nd respondent. In resolving the 4th issue (all other issues were also resolved against the appellant) in favour of the respondents, the Court found it compelling to state the position of the police in the squabble. Thus:

“It has been settled by a long line of authorities that the Police are not debt or rent collection agencies, which is what the Appellants turned the 3rd Respondent to be in this case.”

It went further and reiterated the position of the law, citing the case of Mclaren v James Lloyd Jennings (supra), to the effect that:

“..His Lordship Salami JCA (as he then was) on this subject, held:

I have scrutinized the provisions of the section (Section 4 of Police Act) and I am unable to see a provision providing for or empowering police to enforce contract or collect common debts..In short, the appellants and the policemen they took to Kano were there to collect debt which is not one of the several duties assigned to the Police under the provisions of the Police Act to which the Court was directed and the Court has not been able to find another provision of the Act empowering or constituting the Nigeria Police Force to one of a debt or rent collector..The arrest was not authorized by the Act and was consequently unlawful, wrongful and illegal and cannot afford the Appellants a shield”.

See also the Supreme Court case of DIAMOND BANK v. OPARA & ORS (2018) LPELR-43907(SC).

Conclusions and recommendations

It is an axiomatic truth that, respect for the law is a necessity for national progress and societal soberness. Therefore, the Police should act within their boundaries, they’ve already got a number of duties to discharge, this should be their focus. It is recommended that the legal department of the Police, should from time to time, conduct enlightenment programs on legal matters of this nature, to the overall Police Force. The Police should not allow itself to be used as a machinery through which scores are settled; The Police should advise parties on the appropriate channels to follow in order to address their grievances, and obtain redress for same. The public should also be made to know what matters should be taken to the Police and what matters should not.

Ukashatu Ibrahim is a Final year student of law, UDS. 08139427145 [email protected]