A few years ago, I told someone that my goal was to help improve
legal literacy in Nigeria and the person scoffed at me and asked,
“And then what?” Maybe it was the tone of his voice or it could
have been the look on his face, whichever it was, it conveyed to me
the message that there was no value in trying to improve the legal
literacy of Nigerians. I was a little offended but I have to admit
that some days, I feel like maybe the man had a valid point. People
know what the law is, and then what? The problem in Nigeria is
usually not with the lack of laws, but with the enforcement of
existing laws and the accountability of those who are to enforce
the laws.
In the last few weeks of 2017, the hashtag #EndSARS was trending
on social media as people shared stories about the operations of
the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police. From
the reports, there is little respect for fundamental rights in
their operations. The police have a duty to investigate all crimes,
detect offenders and arrest them. In carrying out their duties,
there are constitutional rights that they must be mindful of. The
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the supreme law
of the land. It supersedes all other laws in the country.
The Constitution provides the Right to dignity of human person
in Section 34(1) – in making an arrest, a suspect is not to be
beaten, handcuffed, leg chained or subjected to any form of
restraint except with the order of a court or magistrate or justice
of peace.
Section 35 (1) is the Right to personal liberty – nobody should
be unlawfully held against their will. The right to liberty may be
curtailed where a person is suspected to have committed a crime or
to prevent him from committing further offences. It all depends on
the seriousness of the charge and the facts available to support
the charge. It means that the practice of arresting a person in the
place of a suspect is unconstitutional.
Section 35(2) provides for the Right to remain silent– a suspect
must be informed of his right to silence until he has consulted
with a legal practitioner or any person of his choice. If the
suspect has no legal practitioner or cannot afford one, the officer
making the arrest must inform him of his right to apply for free
legal representation from Legal Aid Council.
We know that in practice, this does not happen. People are
forced to make all kinds of inculpatory statements at the police
station, without having access to legal advice. Upon arrest, a
suspect has the right to be informed of reasons for his arrest at
the earliest opportunity.
Right to be arraigned before a court of law within a reasonable
time S35 (4) – a person still in detention or not entitled to bail
must be tried within two months from date of arrest or detention;
person released on bail, within three months – if not the persons
shall be released conditionally or unconditionally (without
prejudice to any further proceedings that may be brought against
him) to ensure he appears for trial at a later date. Section 35(5)
provides that a reasonable time is one day where a court of
competent jurisdiction is within a 40km radius; two days or longer
(depending on the circumstances) where no court of competent
jurisdiction within 40km radius. The suspect must be taken to court
or released on bail pending conclusion of investigation. The
limitation on this right is in S35 (7) where suspects arrested in
connection with capital offences may be detained for a longer
period. Sadly, there are people in prison who have been awaiting
trial for minor offences for years.
There are several remedies available to a person whose
constitutional rights have been breached by the police. Such
remedies include compensation and a public apology. But it takes
time and money to pursue these remedies. The problem of long
periods of “awaiting trial” has lingered for many years and there
have been efforts to tackle the situation from within and outside
the judiciary. There is a new, commendable effort by an
organisation called Gavel, which is using the efficiency of
technology to approach the issue. Gavel was set up to primarily
address these breaches of constitutional rights, particularly the
right to be arraigned before a court of law within a reasonable
time.
According to their twitter handle (@citizen_gavel), it is a
civic tech organisation that seeks to increase the pace of justice
delivery and accountability through tracking of cases and the
reduction of the opacity in the justice sector. They have something
called the “Justice Clock”, which is an online tech tool through
which they track time spent by awaiting trial persons. They are
also operating in the trenches, visiting prisons and giving legal
advice and support to inmates awaiting trial.
Gavel announced last week that it is expanding its reach and
services through a new website (gavel.ng). It promises that users
will be able to connect with lawyers that can provide free legal
aid, register as free legal aid lawyers, track corruption cases
through their timeline of cases, track the time spent by awaiting
trial persons and measure the statistics on the implementation of
the Administration of Justice Act (ACJA). I hope they get the kind
of patronage and support they deserve. This platform will be an
invaluable tool for persons whose friends and relatives have been
detained by the police to get legal assistance. There is a tool
that allows people to create a case and file a complaint on the
website, and Gavel makes a link to a pro bono lawyer for the case.
The Nigerian Bar Association’s new requirement that lawyers provide
pro bono services should help to boost the resources available for
those who cannot afford their own legal representation.
A few years ago, I told someone that my goal was to help improve
legal literacy in Nigeria and the person scoffed at me and asked,
“And then what?” Maybe it was the tone of his voice or it could
have been the look on his face, whichever it was, it conveyed to me
the message that there was no value in trying to improve the legal
literacy of Nigerians. I was a little offended but I have to admit
that some days, I feel like maybe the man had a valid point. People
know what the law is, and then what? The problem in Nigeria is
usually not with the lack of laws, but with the enforcement of
existing laws and the accountability of those who are to enforce
the laws.
In the last few weeks of 2017, the hashtag #EndSARS was trending
on social media as people shared stories about the operations of
the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police. From
the reports, there is little respect for fundamental rights in
their operations. The police have a duty to investigate all crimes,
detect offenders and arrest them. In carrying out their duties,
there are constitutional rights that they must be mindful of. The
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the supreme law
of the land. It supersedes all other laws in the country.
The Constitution provides the Right to dignity of human person
in Section 34(1) – in making an arrest, a suspect is not to be
beaten, handcuffed, leg chained or subjected to any form of
restraint except with the order of a court or magistrate or justice
of peace.
Section 35 (1) is the Right to personal liberty – nobody should
be unlawfully held against their will. The right to liberty may be
curtailed where a person is suspected to have committed a crime or
to prevent him from committing further offences. It all depends on
the seriousness of the charge and the facts available to support
the charge. It means that the practice of arresting a person in the
place of a suspect is unconstitutional.
Section 35(2) provides for the Right to remain silent– a suspect
must be informed of his right to silence until he has consulted
with a legal practitioner or any person of his choice. If the
suspect has no legal practitioner or cannot afford one, the officer
making the arrest must inform him of his right to apply for free
legal representation from Legal Aid Council.
We know that in practice, this does not happen. People are
forced to make all kinds of inculpatory statements at the police
station, without having access to legal advice. Upon arrest, a
suspect has the right to be informed of reasons for his arrest at
the earliest opportunity.
Right to be arraigned before a court of law within a reasonable
time S35 (4) – a person still in detention or not entitled to bail
must be tried within two months from date of arrest or detention;
person released on bail, within three months – if not the persons
shall be released conditionally or unconditionally (without
prejudice to any further proceedings that may be brought against
him) to ensure he appears for trial at a later date. Section 35(5)
provides that a reasonable time is one day where a court of
competent jurisdiction is within a 40km radius; two days or longer
(depending on the circumstances) where no court of competent
jurisdiction within 40km radius. The suspect must be taken to court
or released on bail pending conclusion of investigation. The
limitation on this right is in S35 (7) where suspects arrested in
connection with capital offences may be detained for a longer
period. Sadly, there are people in prison who have been awaiting
trial for minor offences for years.
There are several remedies available to a person whose
constitutional rights have been breached by the police. Such
remedies include compensation and a public apology. But it takes
time and money to pursue these remedies. The problem of long
periods of “awaiting trial” has lingered for many years and there
have been efforts to tackle the situation from within and outside
the judiciary. There is a new, commendable effort by an
organisation called Gavel, which is using the efficiency of
technology to approach the issue. Gavel was set up to primarily
address these breaches of constitutional rights, particularly the
right to be arraigned before a court of law within a reasonable
time.
According to their twitter handle (@citizen_gavel), it is a
civic tech organisation that seeks to increase the pace of justice
delivery and accountability through tracking of cases and the
reduction of the opacity in the justice sector. They have something
called the “Justice Clock”, which is an online tech tool through
which they track time spent by awaiting trial persons. They are
also operating in the trenches, visiting prisons and giving legal
advice and support to inmates awaiting trial.
Gavel announced last week that it is expanding its reach and
services through a new website (gavel.ng). It promises that users
will be able to connect with lawyers that can provide free legal
aid, register as free legal aid lawyers, track corruption cases
through their timeline of cases, track the time spent by awaiting
trial persons and measure the statistics on the implementation of
the Administration of Justice Act (ACJA). I hope they get the kind
of patronage and support they deserve. This platform will be an
invaluable tool for persons whose friends and relatives have been
detained by the police to get legal assistance. There is a tool
that allows people to create a case and file a complaint on the
website, and Gavel makes a link to a pro bono lawyer for the case.
The Nigerian Bar Association’s new requirement that lawyers provide
pro bono services should help to boost the resources available for
those who cannot afford their own legal representation.
Read more https://nairalaw.com/constitutional-rights-and-the-police/