AN OVERVIEW OF THE NIGERIAN POLICE AND THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD OF POLICING
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
In most countries, it has been accepted that democracy is the only system of government that seeks to protect individual liberty and guarantee the fundamental rights of all. The pursuit of these rights is however not absolute as there exist state institutions like the police whose mandate is to maintain law and order and curtail the citizenry‟s excesses within constitutional means
hence:[1]
Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of government to promote order, safety, health, morals, general welfare within constitutional limits and it is an essential attribute of government.‟ Indeed, the police are the outward civil authority of the power and might of a civilized country. The generality of the public is potentially affected one way or another by their action or inaction
What this presupposes is that while democracy allows or guarantees freedom, the police as an institution policed that freedom and in carrying out this function, they are expected to operate within existing democratic norms, else the essence of democracy becomes defeated. This is because the role of police and the existence of these norms remain the standard benchmark in ascertaining an acceptable democratic system. As a result, most of the policing applications that are classified as democratic policing practices in an ideal society are designed to ordinarily promote democratic principles and international policing. In Nigeria however, many dilemma arose concerning the way and manner the police carry out its statutory responsibilities. Top on the striking balance of this is the need to respect the inalienable rights of citizens while carrying out their legitimate duties. These duties ought to be performed within the context of existing rules duly fashioned and recognized. It is however regrettable that despite more than a decade of democratic governance, Nigerians are still faced with lots of international policing abuses in the hand of the police. Contrary to what democracy represents, the police is still largely authoritarian in nature[2]. McCulley[3] opines that the state of international policing violations by police officials is becoming a culture of impunity and this includes arbitrary arrest, extra-judicial killings, illegal detention and destruction of property by security forces etc. The question therefore is how democratic is the Nigeria Police Force and how well have they imbibe democratic policing principles? What is their response level with regards to the observance of international policing since 1999? It has been correctly pointed out that the police have not performed well in this regard.
The Guardian editorial opined:
The truth is that the police system in Nigeria is decadent at several levels, not least of which is the tunnel vision of our police men in their operational approach to investigations and the treatment of suspects and detainees. Driven by overwhelming corrupt tendencies, they are rooted to a mixed bag of torture tactics that have nothing to do with the enforcement of the law or the promotion of justice… Nigerians know too well that whether accepting commissions from individuals or groups to settle scores against antagonists, opponents or offenders, whether hounding persons or groups in the name of the state or making suspects plead guilty to a crime not committed in order to be saved from police brutality, or whether committing sexual violence against female detainees, our police are adept to making life hell on earth for their victims.[4]
Reuben Abati observed further:
…the Nigeria Police Force is one of the most unpopular institutions in Nigeria today; it is distrusted by the same people whose lives and property it is meant to protect, and this has resulted into a resort to self-help in many ways. Every year, the Amnesty International and International policing Watch as well as local civil society organizations report on many cases of police brutality, police inefficiency and corruption. The crime rate is on the increase and the police have proven to be helpless and overwhelmed. This has been so in nearly every instance, be the matter of armed robbery, kidnapping, ethno religious violence or financial fraud. It is also generally regarded as a corrupt police force with policemen collecting bribes openly and showing tendencies of thuggery and mendicancy. It is so bad that rich persons hire the police for all kinds of unlawful purpose, or simply as bodyguards to oppress the less privileged. [5]
In spite of the foregoing, it has been shown that there are inherent factors responsible for this negative impasse. One of such is the impact of Nigeria‟s colonial/ military history. The annexation of Lagos by the British in 1861 and the subsequent establishment of a Consular Guard were solely to protect British economic interest and so no foundation was properly laid for a civil and genuine police force for Nigeria. Dambazau agrees when he stated that “the Nigeria Police was not constituted to provide services to the community in a manner consistent with international policing and democracy, but the main concern of the colonial administration was to brutally suppress popular resistance against colonialism by poorly educated and poorly trained personnel, and the effects are still felt today”[6]. Alemika also agreed:
…Historical evidence demonstrates that the colonial police forces were organized and oriented to behave as occupation forces- ruthless, brutal, corrupt, dishonest and prone to brutalizing the colonized peoples and vandalizing their properties… The preoccupation of colonial and post-colonial Nigeria police were not the promotion and enforcement of just laws, rule of law, natural justice and equity and security of the vast majority of Nigerians, as colonial surrogates often claimed…the greatest part of the police energies and resources were committed to, and dissipated on the suppression of struggles and protests against oppression and exploitation, the large scale theft and mismanagement of the public wealth by those who controlled the economy and state apparatus.[7]
