As Lagos Moves to Stop Parade of Suspects

By the time Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu signs into law a bill just passed by the Lagos State House of Assembly seeking to stop the police and other law enforcement agencies from parading suspects before the media, one question begging for answer would be if these agencies known for breaking the law would obey it, Davidson Iriekpen writes

Any moment from now, Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State will sign into law a bill that will make it an offence for the police and law enforcement agencies to parade suspects in the state.

The bill, which was passed last Monday by the state House of Assembly, is seeking to put a stop to suspects from being paraded before the media.

The bill, which is an amendment of the state Criminal Justice Law, according to section 9(a), states that “as from the commencement of this law, the police shall refrain from parading any suspect before the media”.

In addition to stopping the parade of suspects before the media, the bill also prohibits arrests in lieu in criminal matters. It states that suspects should be accorded humane treatment, with the right to dignity of person and not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.

It also stipulates that the only condition where the police can arrest without warrant is if a person is “reasonably suspected to unlawfully be in possession of firearms or other such dangerous instruments”.

The bill adds that arrested persons “shall be given reasonable facilities for obtaining legal advice, bail or making arrangements for defence or release”.

Parading of suspects before the media is not new in Nigeria. The legality or otherwise of the issue has always been a point of debate. Public parade of suspects is basically a practice among law enforcement agencies where persons suspected of committing criminal offences are put forward before pressmen or the members of the public pending their arraignment in court. In most cases, after such public parade, some of the suspects are eventually released from custody for lack of sufficient evidence to link them with the alleged offence.

It is also not unusual for the paraded suspect to be discharged and acquitted by the court, after which he or she is left with the public impression of being a criminal as the pressmen before whom the he or she was paraded are not invited and the allegations retracted before them.

With the trending rate of public parade of suspects by law enforcement agents both on electronic and print media and also the display of suspects before crowd of people, one may be in doubt as to the legality of this action considering the fact that those parading the suspects are the ones saddled with the responsibility of enforcing laws and should therefore know the law.

Several arguments have been put forward as to the merits of public parade of suspects. The arguments in favour of public parade of criminal suspects majorly come from law enforcement agents, particularly the police.

It has been reasoned that public parade of suspects by the police is to boost public morale of the policemen on patrol as well as to promote the efficiency and the capacity of the police to detect crime in the society. It is also seen as deterrence to other members of the public watching or reading about the paraded suspects to desist from crime.

Arguments in favour of public parade of suspects have been pushed further that the suspects are paraded as suspects not as convicts and as such they are not being prejudged by the police. In essence, from the perspective of some individuals like the law enforcement agents, public parade of criminal suspects is seen as a welcome development which would boost public confidence in the law enforcement agents and make the public consider them as being proactive.

However, several lawyers, human right activists and civil society organisations have called for its end, saying it does not protect the human rights of suspects. They hinged their arguments on Section 36 subsections 5 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria (as amended) which presumes every person who is charged with criminal offence as innocent until such person is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The provision also falls in consonance with African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is also known as the Banjul Charter, an international human rights instrument that is intended to promote and protect human rights and basic freedoms in the African continent. Nigeria was part of the 54 African Union (AU) member states that ratified the treaty in 1983. By the virtue of this provision, the liberty and privacy of criminal suspects under the law of the land are protected beyond any orchestrated intent of the law enforcement agency.

Notwithstanding the clear position of the law and the plethora of court judgments against the pre-trial parade of crime suspects, successive police authorities have openly sanctioned the action.

A Police Public Relations Officer once revealed that there was no law prohibiting the parade of suspects before the media in Nigeria. Even though is no specific law barring the Force carrying out such action, what perhaps the PPRO was not aware of are a plethora of judgments frowning at the action.

For instance, in Ndukwem Chiziri Nice v. AG, Federation & Anor. (2007) CHR 218 at 232, Justice Adebukola Banjoko of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory held that “The act of parading him (the suspect) before the press as evidenced by the exhibits annexed to the affidavit was uncalled for and a callous disregard for his person. He was shown to the public the next day of his arrest even without any investigation conducted in the matter.

“He was already prejudged by the police who are incompetent, so to have such function, it is the duty of the court to pass a verdict of guilt and this constitutes a clear breach of Section 36(4) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 on the doctrine of fair hearing.”

Similarly, in Dyot Bayi & 14 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004-2009) CCJLER 245 at 265, the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS Court condemned the media trial of the applicants when it held that: “The court is of the opinion that for the fact that the defendants presented the applicants before the press when no judge or court has found them guilty, certainly constitute a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence such as provided in Article 7(b) of the same African Charter and not a violation in the sense of Article 5 of the said Charter.

The court proceeded to award damages of $42,750 to each of the 10 applicants and $10,000 as costs payable by the federal government for the illegal actions of the naval personnel who carried out the illegal parade of the applicants.

In 2011, a Federal High Court awarded the sum of N20 million against the Lagos State Commissioner of Police for parading one Ottoh Obono before the media as an armed robber, even before his arraignment in court. Upon the issuance of the advice of the Director of Public Prosecution, Obono was later found to be innocent of the crime.

Despite the fact that these judgments seriously frowned at public parade of suspects, the police have not relented in still carrying out the action. Before his retirement recently, an Inspector General of Police (IG) openly gave the practice a stamp of approval. In his response to a question asked during the #AskThePolice session on Twitter, he said the parade of suspects “is simply the Force letting the public know the efforts and achievements of the police in curbing and reducing crime to the barest minimum.”

Observers have often argued that a majority of crime suspects paraded by the police are often persons of low means. While it is not unusual to parade poor criminal suspects who are accused of stealing as low or small as mobile phones, it is rare for the police and other security agencies to parade rich and powerful criminal suspects who loot the treasury to the tune of several billions of Naira. They stated that many notable politicians and businessmen who today have been pronounced guilty of corruption by the courts and sentenced to jail, were never paraded before their trial.

Recently, a human rights activist, Femi Falana (SAN), sued the police, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Attorney-General of Federation over media parade of suspects. Falana, who approached a Federal High Court in Abuja in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/519/19 said pre-trial media parade of criminal suspects by security and anti-corruption agencies is illegal and unconstitutional.

The lawyer said the act is a violation of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as Amended, Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

This is why upon hearing about the passage of the bill by the Lagos State House of Assembly, he urged Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu not to delay in assenting to it. In a statement titled: “Kudos to Lagos State House of Assembly for outlawing parade of criminal suspects”, the human rights lawyer said it has become expedient for the governor to assent to the bill in view of the provisions of the constitution and African Charter.

He argued that the practice of parading suspects is illegal as it constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental right of criminal suspects to presumption of innocence.

“It is equally discriminatory as only lowly placed criminal suspects are exposed to media parade by the police and other law enforcement agencies. While poor suspects are paraded for allegedly stealing tubers of yam or telephone handsets valued at N10,000 or less, politically-exposed persons accused of looting the public treasury to the tune of N10 billion or more are never paraded before the media,” the rights lawyer said.

The senior lawyer noted that even though the incriminating statements procured from criminal suspects during media parade are not admissible during trial in criminal courts, they are used by law enforcement agencies to compel members of the public to participate in mob justice,” he said.

He argued that they are also used to blackmail judges to convict criminal suspects, with or without evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Also, a Professor of law at the Bayero University, Kano, Mamman Lawan Yusufari (SAN), believes such tendencies portray suspects as guilty in the eye of the society, thereby constituting defamation to the reputation of their characters.

“A suspect is protected by the constitution because the law says if a person is suspected to have committed an offence, he/she is a suspect. When you charge the person to court, the name changes to accused person or a defendant. When trial starts, he may plead guilty or not guilty after the charges are read to the fellow. If he pleads guilty, the court may convict him, depending on the nature of the offence. That is called summary trial.

“After conviction, following summary or normal trial where witnesses and other evidence are taken, the court will deliver judgment by either convict the fellow or discharge and acquaint the accused. If the accused person is convicted, the name changes from accused to convict. At this stage, the media can pronounce to the whole world that the person is a criminal. Before you get to this stage, the constitution under section 36 (5), says the person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty,” Mamman said.

According to him, that is a fundamental right under Section 4 of the constitution. If the media report a suspect of crime by a means of showing the face or mentioning his name on the newspaper, he argued that it is as good as convicting the suspect in the eye of the public. Mamman said such is fundamentally wrong because it is only a court that can pronounce suspect guilty and convict an accused person.

Afegbai Imoodu believes that the parade of suspects by the police is a reflection of a lack of professionalism. Pointing out that often time, cases are bungled by the police during the parade.

He said: “With due respect to the Nigerian Police, I think parading suspects before or after the investigation is concluded but before arraignment shows lack professionalism. The act simply amounts to advertisements by the police. They just want to tell the whole world that they are working whereas in most cases, the parade is one of the reasons cases fail in court.

“It also distorts investigation as some of the suspects who may be at large will run away from the country. Police should stop getting cheap popularity. The innocence of a suspect is presumed under the law. The media trial has no recognition in law. Police should stop using their advertised inconclusive investigation to get undeserved applause from the populace.

“Can you imagine a police team sending pictures online of how they arrested suspects thereby giving themselves away? Were the suspect’s fools waiting to be arrested? I think there is a need to educate the police on this aspect of the law. I don’t think that the police is aware that 85 per cent of the cases they investigated are being thrown out of court due to poor and inexperienced investigation tactics.”

However, a criminologist, Dr. MaiKano Madaki, feels otherwise.

He stated that the police could enforce a parade on suspects during investigation, since the fundamental rights of suspects are relinquished when police investigation begins. But Madaki stressed that the law did not allow police to pre-empt whether suspects are guilty or not before the media and public.

“When someone is suspected to have committed a crime, the person’s fundamental human rights are suspended because being a suspect; you are technically relinquishing those rights. That’s why during investigation, the suspect’s house may be invaded, property impounded, some certain document seized. You may no longer have freedom to your privacy, movement restricted, your speeches restrained and you are detained even while you are charged to court and standing trial.

“The law enforcement agencies must have linked all sufficient evidence to the suspect because what is critical in any criminal investigation and prosecution is linking the crime to the suspects. However, the suspect will remain innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law. Perhaps, this is one of the fundamentals that police mostly rely on before parading their suspects. Police is not empowered by constitution to declare or pre-empt suspects, only the courts reserve that right,” he argued.

Madaki further stated that parading suspects before the media has no value to the investigation. Police, he reiterated are entrusted to investigate, arrest, and submit a report of its investigation and file charges before a competent court of jurisdiction for legal prosecution.

“For me, there is nothing like parading suspects before the media. What the police are doing is an informal system of social degradation ceremony where suspects are taken to the marketplace to stigmatise and disgrace them in social prosecution. Even before police can declare suspects wanted, display his picture, name and identity to public, they must approach the court for ruling,” he insisted.

In a response to a national daily recently, the immediate past National Assistant Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Akorede Lawal, noted that despite the popularity of media parades, courts give no consequence to confessions made by suspects in such parades. He pointed out that it was high time police moved away from such practice and conduct serious investigations that would lead to conviction in court.

According to him, one ill of the media parade and the confession is that it is often elicited from the suspect and places undue pressure on the prosecution and affects the independence of decision of the court and the reasons for its judgment.

He said: “By the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (as well as the extant criminal procedure laws of various states, including the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2011) and the Evidence Act, the ‘media confession’ – the type elicited from Chidinma Ojukwu– is hardly admissible in law due to the torture, threat, inducement and promise by the police, that often precedes such media session.

“Also, the law demands that a confession should be in writing and should be made in the presence of the suspect’s counsel, an officer of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria or an official of a civil society organisation or a justice of the peace or any other person of the suspect’s choice – a condition that is hardly fulfilled during the media parade. However, where such confession is admitted because of its relevance, it would arguably be of lightweight in the absence of other proven evidence of her guilt.”

The questions begging for answers now are: Will the police and other law enforcement agencies which are fond of breaking the laws of the land obey the new law when it eventually comes into effect? Won’t the law also generate another debate on whether the federal police can obey a state law? Nigerians are watching.

QUOTE