Lawyers have disagreed with insinuations by the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Olohundare Jimoh, that media parade of crime suspects is necessary for effective prosecution and justice delivery.
To the lawyers, the practice, in the face of existing judicial decisions condemning it, amounts to contempt of court and an
affront on the rule of law. reports
Some senior lawyers have emphasised the need for law enforcement agencies to do away with the practice of media parade of crime suspects, saying it is unlawful.
The lawyers bared their minds at the weekend while reacting to a call by the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Olohundare Jimoh, that media parade of crime suspects should be allowed.
According to them, media parade amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights of the suspects, particularly their rights to the presumption of innocence as enshrined in the Constitution.
Recently, the Lagos State Commissioner of Police (CP), Olohundare Jimoh, has criticized the prohibition of public parade of criminal suspects, saying it is frustrating the effective prosecution and delivery of justice.
The CP hinted that although the command’s crime-fighting strategies had led to the arrest of numerous suspects and the recovery of locally made firearms, legal limitations are hindering the public parade of those apprehended.
“We have brought in several suspects, but we cannot parade them because of the perceived public trial. This slows down their prosecution and delays justice for the victims”, the CP said.
Public identification of crime suspects, according to Jimoh, can bolster victims’ confidence to testify in court and provide additional investigative leads. “When we parade suspects, victims of the crimes, people they have injured or hurt can identify them. It often encourages them to come forward and pursue justice in court”, he added.
He further posited that public awareness of the consequences of criminal behaviour could serve as a deterrent, adding that “when public sees the faces behind these crimes, it can reduce the rate of such offences.
We must balance human rights with the need for justice”. The CP maintained that while respect for human dignity is paramount, individuals who violate the rights of others must be held accountable.
“Human rights exist for everyone, but those rights end where another person’s rights are violated,” he said. In referencing what he termed a true-life example, Jimoh recalled a case in which a child identified a suspect on television after a crime scene was televised.
“The identification provided critical evidence that helped secure the suspect’s conviction. That singular act gave the police more clues and strengthened the case in court,” he noted. The police boss consequently pleaded with relevant authorities to revisit and reconsider the current ban on parade of suspects.
Court’s verdict
It would be recalled that the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court had sometimes in August 2022, declared the parade of crime suspects by police as illegal.
Media parade of crime suspects undermines integrity of justice system
The court presided over by Justice Zainab Abubakar had taken the position while delivering a ruling in a suit designated FHC/ ABJ/CS/01/2020, filed by one, Victor Ojionu, against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) over his alleged unlawful arrest, handcuffing, detention and pre-trial media parade on September 17, 2019 by a team of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Intelligence Response Team (IRT), led by the suspended Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Abba Kyari.
In her ruling, Justice Abubakar insisted that Ojionu’s arrest without warrant, handcuffing and pre-trial media parade by police is illegal, null and void and in violation of Sections 34 and 36 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
The trial judge further issued an order for the award of N1 million as compensation for Ojionu’s maltreatment by the police. Before the court’s decision, the Intelligence Response Team of the IGP, led by the embattled Kyari had in 2019 arrested Ojionu at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, for allegedly stealing over N500 million within the space of five years.
The Imo state-born businessman was later paraded by the police, following which Ojionu filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit through his lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, to challenge the action. In the legal action, the businessman contended that his pre-trial parade was unlawful and a violation of his fundamental human rights since he was yet to be found guilty by a competent court of law.
Ojionu, in his legal action marked FHC/ABJ/CS/01/2020, had sought a legal redress for his unlawful arrest, handcuffing, detention and pre-trial media parade carried out on September 17, 2019, by men and officers of the IRT led by Abba Kyari.
The businessman had equally asked the court to declare that his arrest (without a warrant) by armed agents of the respondents on September 17, 2019, is illegal and unconstitutional, as it violates his fundamental right to personal liberty and presumption of innocence as enshrined in Sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution and Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
The businessman equally prayed the court for a declaration that his handcuffing by armed agents of the respondents on September 17, 2019, is illegal and unconstitutional, as it violates his fundamental right to dignity of human persons enshrined in Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4 and 5 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
Falana’s suit
In a related development, a rights activist, Femi Falana (SAN), had in May 2019, instituted a suit at a Federal High Court in Abuja praying for an order to stop the pre-trial media parade of crime suspects by law enforcement agencies.
The respondents in the suit are; the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nigerian Customs Service (NCS), Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), Nigerian Navy, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the AttorneyGeneral of the Federation (AGF).
According to the legal action initiated on May 16, 2019, and marked FHC/ABJ/CS/519/19, the human rights activist through his lawyer, Mrs Funmi Falana (SAN), argued that the pre-trial media parade of crime suspects was a violation of the suspects’ right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
While insisting before the court that this right was guaranteed under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7(1) (b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Falana posited that by virtue of Sections 2 (1) and 2 (2) (b) of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017 the pre-trial media parade of suspects amounts to psychological and mental torture and other various forms of torture prohibited by the Act.
The SAN, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the media parade, even criminal charges, filed against the suspects in courts of law amounts to prejudging them and violating their fundamental rights to presumption of innocence and against torture as enshrined in the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 and the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, respectively.
Falana equally sought a declaration that pre-trial media parade of crime suspects by the respondents has been prohibited by Section 2(xi) of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017. Besides, he is seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents whether by themselves, their agents, privies and servants from further exposing crime suspects to media parade in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.
EFCC’s parade of OAU students
However, inspite of the subsisting order of court which outlawed parade of suspects by law enforcement agencies without a clear directive from the court, the act has continued unabated. On November 1, 2023, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) revealed that its Ibadan Zonal Command carried out the arrest of no fewer than 69 internet fraud suspects in Osun State.
The anti-graft agency, specifically made public that the internet fraud suspects who are students of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, were apprehended at the Oduduwa Estate area following actionable intelligence on their suspected involvement in fraudulent internet-related activities. Exotic cars, 190 mobile phones and 40 laptops, among other items were recovered from the suspects, according to the anti-graft agency.
However, the arrest of the internet fraud suspects attracted the anger of some students of OAU who later stormed the EFCC’s office in Ibadan to protest the arrest of their colleagues. The students had equally made a request for the anti-graft agency to tender an apology consequent upon the arrest of the 69 suspects who they claimed were their colleagues in a raid of outside campus hostels.
Specifically, the Students’ Union Government (SUG) of the university maintained that the arrested students were forcefully driven by operatives of the anti-graft agency from the university’s environment in Ile-Ife to the commission’s office in Ibadan.
In a statement jointly issued by the union’s president, Abbas Ojo; Secretary General, Akinboni Opeyemi and PRO, Omisore Elijah, they demanded that the EFCC should clear the names of their members. As a result of the protest, 58 of the students were released by the anti-graft agency.
In a statement, spokesperson of the Commission, Dele Oyewale, posited that “many of the suspects duly profiled have been released, while profiling of suspects yet un-released will be completed without further delay.
OAU students’ arraignment
Meanwhile, on November 6, 2023, the EFCC arraigned eleven OAU students over alleged involvement in internet fraud. The students were arraigned before Justice Nathaniel Ayo-Emmanuel of a Federal High Court in Osogbo.
Those dragged before the court are; Perekebena Olombeni Micah, Nnekwelugo Nnaemeka, Moyosore Favour Oluwasakin, Aghwaritoma Wisdom Obaro, Daniel Olashile Maiye, and Gbolahan Khalid Adesina. Others are; Yinka Temitope Jayeola, Olumuyiwa Emmanuel Adeleye, Abiola Emmanuel Oluwadare, Busari Abdulazeez Ayodeji and Okesipe Tobiloba Paul. Nine of the defendants were arraigned on a count charge each, while the remaining two, Micah and Obaro, had a six-count charge levelled against each of them.
One of the counts read: “That you, Perekebena Olombeni Micah, sometimes in 2023 in Osogbo, Osun State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court fraudulently impersonated the name – Pies through your WhatsApp account phone number 1(414)367-9473 by claiming that you are an American Female in love with your victims in the United States of America with intent to gain advantage for yourself and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 22 (2) (b) (i) and punishable under Section 22 (2) (b) of the Cyber Crimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Act, 2015.
Lawyers speak
Speaking while reacting to comments made by the Lagos Police boss and the unlawful parade of suspects by law enforcement agencies without a clear order of the court despite the existence of a subsisting judicial pronouncement, Dr Abiodun Layonu (SAN) maintained that, “such actions constitute a blatant disregard for the rule of law and amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of the suspects, particularly their
The practice of parading suspected criminals who might eventually not be found guilty is illegal
right to the presumption of innocence as enshrined in the Constitution”. On his part, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN) posited that, “Such conduct by the police undermines the integrity of the justice system and constitutes a flagrant breach of constitutional rights”.
He emphasised that judicial pronouncements are binding and must be respected by all authorities, including law enforcement agencies, warning that continued disregard for court decisions could erode public confidence in the legal system.
In his comments, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), argued that the practice of parading suspected criminals who might eventually not be found guilty is illegal. According to the SAN, the act has deprived such suspects of their humanity and constitutional protection.
“It’s unconstitutional and an inhuman treatment, and the police and other law enforcement agencies must stop this practice forthwith”, Agbakoba said. Even, a Lagos-based rights activist and senior lawyer, Dr Monday Ubani (SAN), insisted that the practice remained a clear violation of the Constitution and the rights of suspects.
The SAN charged victims to take legal action against the security agencies, adding that because of the underdeveloped legal system, it is extremely difficult to executive judgements against government agencies and institutions. “Our criminal justice system presumes any accused person innocent until the contrary is proven. Until a court makes such a pronouncement, such a person is innocent.
“The reason is that, if people are allowed to take the law into their hands, they could conspire to frame up an innocent person and go ahead to stone or even kill him. “But our justice system allows for the other party to be heard. It is known in law as ‘Audi alteram partem,’ meaning that both sides must be heard and no man can be condemned unheard.
“Not only that, the court that will try the suspects must be constituted in such a manner as to guarantee its independence and impartiality. “The person accusing you cannot be the person sitting on trial against you. It must be handled by an independent person.
So, if security agencies, during an investigation, parade such people as criminals, it is clearly a violation of the Constitution. What they are doing is investigation and not trial. “The issue of beating, maltreating or parading them is a violation of the Constitution.
Parading them means they have been found guilty. You have arrested and investigated them, so charge them to court. “It is the responsibility of the court to listen to both parties and make its pronouncement accordingly. “Otherwise, the agencies have no right whatsoever to parade or maltreat them.
Such a person is only an accused person and that must be recognised by the agencies. “However, people whose rights were so violated can take legal action against the agency. I know that, because of our weak system, it is difficult to execute judgements against the government.
“But that can only happen in a Banana Republic like ours, where the government treats matters with levity and impunity. “Our institutions here are very weak, unlike in developed countries that have built strong systems. “I have two such judgements. One is worth about N17 million. A policeman working for the Nigeria Police was sent to arrest somebody in Benin.
“He did, only for a higher authority to order that the arrested person be released. Ironically, after his release, he alleged armed robbery and this same policeman sent by the police was charged with armed robbery by the same police. “He was tried but was discharged and acquitted due to lack of evidence. Meanwhile, they have dismissed him. “So he went to court and won the case against the police.
We even went to the National Assembly to ensure the execution of the judgement, eight years down the line nothing has happened. “So, the truth remains that we need another change to have the change we desire. The present administration acts with impunity. They do not care about the people. It is very unfortunate that, against our expectations, the system still operates in a purely primitive manner”.
Another civil rights crusader, Chief Malachy Ugwunmadu argued that, “The continued parade of suspects without a court order flagrantly violates their constitutional rights, particularly the right to dignity of the human person and presumption of innocence under Sections 34 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution””. He stressed that such practices, in the face of existing judicial decisions condemning them, amount to” contempt of court and a dangerous affront to the rule of law”.
