CHIEF SUNDAY EFFIONG UDO & ORS v. CHIEF SUNDAY KOFEE ESSIEN & ORS
(2014) LCN/7033(CA)
RATIO
WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF A PERSON REPORTED TO HAVE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED A CRIME
The rule of law must remain the guide and protector of all persons in Nigeria and not the rule of arbitrariness and oppression. The 1st Appellant had a duty to lodge a complaint to the 5th and 6th Appellants against the Respondents. Whatever 5th & 6th Appellants decided to do with the information was their Responsibility. See Milad Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) page 621, FAJEMIROKUN v. CBN LTD (2009) 21 WRN 1 @ 10, where it was held by the Supreme Court that: It is the duty of citizens of this country to report cases of commissions of crime to the police for their investigation and what happens after such report is entirely the responsibility of the police. The citizens cannot be held culpable for doing their civic duty unless it is shown that it is done mala fide.
The information provided by the 1st Appellant to the 5th and 6th Appellant was privileged. 1st – 3rd Appellants were entitled to the protection of the law against any act of arrest and detention. See OCEANIC SECURITIES INT’L LTD v. BALOGUN (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 643) 1880 @ 1901, where the Court of Appeal per Mbaba, J.C.A. held thus: In the case of P.G.S.S Macchi v. Igbudu (2005) 12 NWLR (Part 940) 543 at 574, it was held that any complaint made or information given to those interested in investigating a matter (the police) will in the interest of the society be privileged, once there is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. DURU v. NWANGWU (2006) 5 SCNJ 394 @ 402.
It follows, therefore, that where an individual (in this case the 1st Appellant) had lodged the facts of his complaints to the police and the police had thereupon, on their own, proceeded to carry out arrest and detention, then the act of imprisonment is that of the police. When a citizen reports a matter to the police or any law enforcement agency for the exercise of their discretion, including the discretion to investigate, neither the police nor the citizen would be liable for the breach of a right of arrest if the report to the police discloses a prima facie case against the Applicant. See BASSEY v. AFIA (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 531) 1477 @ 1500-1501 H.5, EZEADUKWA v. MADUKA (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 5180) 635.
The learned trial judge wrongly applied the decision in ONAH v. OKENWA (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 565) 357. Where Jauro, JCA held inter alia: Once criminal allegations are made against a citizen, it is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Police to investigate, as investigation and detection of crime is one of the primary duties assigned to the police under section 4 of the Police Act. (See Onah v. Okenwa (supra) at 375). See also the holding of Nwodo, J.C.A. (of blessed memory)
Every person in Nigeria who feels an offence has been committed has a right to the Nigeria Police Force. Once that right of complaint to the police who are custodians of order in the society is exercised, the right shifts to the police to exercise statutory powers under Section 4 of the Police Act. The power conferred on the police under the Police Act includes investigation, arrest, interrogation, search and detention of any suspect. In the process of investigation, the police is enjoined to look at the facts contained in the complaint carefully before proceeding to arrest or detain the persons complained against. This is the rationale for shifting the onus of justification of attest and detention on the police. Once an applicant is aggrieved that his fundamental right under the constitution has been infringed, commences an action in Court and establishes the claim on arrest and detention, the police take, once a complaint has been made to them must be based on facts which are reasonable and justifiable. Per Uzo I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, J.C.A.
