Being an address to the audience of the 21st Memorial of the Ughelli Incident on 30th December 2004 by Andrew Obinna Onyearu, NAS Capone, National Association of Seadogs.
A. Introduction & Background
The Chairman, the Special Guest of Honour, Guest Speakers, My Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, Ahoy Seadogs,
on behalf of the National Association of Seadogs, it is my distinct privilege to have the opportunity to speak to you today about this subject of significance importance in the social ethos of Nigeria – especially the manner in which those concepts influence the life of the communities that make up our great country. This subject is not one that our organisation has come to become involved with in the most pleasant of circumstances. I believe that many of us know why we have come here today but for those who do not and especially for the record, I am sure that you will permit me the latitude just to make a brief mention of how this situation came about.
Members of this organisation on 27 December 1983, in the unit then known as Zone C came together to have their normal end of year sally. In ordinary parlance, sally “means to go out; go forth; venture out”. Within the organisation, a sally is an external activity where Seadogs come together purely for the purpose of making merriment, this situation having been engendered by a designated objective. It is, in all respects, a celebration. By virtue of its immediate composition, it is an outdoor activity. The merriment is noisy and this circumstance is heightened by what is usually a large number
of individuals who come together. It is not an activity that is capable of being concealed in any way. It was in this state that the members of the organisation came together on this day. The event took place at a primary school. With the large presence of individuals, audibly accompanied by music and other boisterous activity, it was clearly an activity of a very prominent nature. Quite late in the evening, the police arrived, ostensibly seeking to undertake their duties. What transpired subsequently was anything but that. In clearly unjustifiable and inexplicable circumstances, without prompting or motivation, they shot indiscriminately into the crowd of people. When we took stock of what happened, Bernard Obi, Anthony Omakor, Kester Sobotie, Victor Oyailo, Kingsley Otaye and Joseph Uloho had all lost their lives. In the entire period of this organisation’s history, that hour remains, unparalleled, its darkest hour.
What we have done since then remains in the honour of the departed. Those of a spiritual persuasion have urged the need to forgive. Whatever our views, including those of the immediate family are, that incident will never be forgotten. Apart from issues of self; organisational and internal reflection and rehabilitation, one of the duties the unfortunate circumstances imposed on us as an organisation is to ensure that we take every considerable step in making sure that this situation never arises again. Nigeria recognises that we as an organisation have borne our loss with dignity and equanimity. The added responsibility that it has imposed on us lies in taking the harsh lessons of that experience and translating those indelible impressions into direct and meaningful contribution targeted at improving the services provided by the police to the community and embellishment of the relationship between the community and the police.
B. Legal Issues/Police Response
The shooting and killing of members of this organisation in 1980 was both unlawful and illegal. The Inspector General of Police at the time of the incident apologised to the organisation and initiated an enquiry that led to the prosecution of 4 police officers. It is also common knowledge that the prosecution has effectively collapsed for reasons beyond the scope of this paper. What is manifested here is that this loss of life was unjustifiable and entirely avoidable. As a matter of law, the actions offended the provisions of section 316 of the Criminal Code and should have, upon successful prosecution, attracted the penalty imposed in section 319(1) of the Criminal Code. Mention is made of these provisions because it is and remains vital, in the execution of their duties, that the effect of these provisions is brought home to the police officers that are responsible for administering the law. Section 4 of the Police Act imposes on the police, the duty of prevention and detection of crime; apprehension of offenders; the preservation of law and order; the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged. This mandate includes policing themselves. From the illustration of this organisation’s own peculiar circumstances, it is clear that the sermon of prosecution of police officers who commit criminal offences must be preached with emphasis and repetition to act as a serious deterrent to the minority of police officers whose loss of control continues to lead to incidents of “accidental discharge”. The training process for police officers must emphasise their obligation to accept responsibility for their actions and must bring home to police officers the fact that their official position constitutes no immunity from prosecution for crimes that they are themselves responsible.
It must be said that the leadership of the police itself has and continues to take the view that police officers must continue to treat members of the public with humility and respect. In a press release on 28 July 2004, the Inspector General, Tafa Balogun warned that violation of rights of any members of the public would be viewed with all seriousness just as police officers caught for extortion would be dismissed from the police force and prosecuted. These observations represent high endorsement of the view that the police authorities have become, now, more sensitive to the fact that significantly more must be done in order to ensure that the police better regulates itself.
This position is not new. What it desires is that the emphasis on self-policing must be heightened. As an illustration of the disposition of the authorities in the past towards accidental discharge cases, I mentioned the case of Oguonze –v- The State [1998] 4 SCNJ 226. In this case, the accused, a police officer was charged with murder. He had reportedly ordered the deceased, who was in his car with his brother, to stop at a checkpoint at the Oluku junction of the Lagos/Benin expressway on 18 August 1994. The deceased, who had been involved in a verbal altercation with the policeman stopped but not promptly. Presumably because he was not responding promptly enough to his instructions, the accused reportedly walked backwards for a distance of about 7 feet, pointed his gun at the deceased and shot him on the left side of his chest. The deceased died instantly. The accused threatened to shoot the brother of the deceased and the others present, whose lives were only spared by the intervention of other police officers present. The police officer was convicted of murder. He lodged unsuccessful appeals to both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
C. Causes of Accidental Discharges
Experts have, in the past, offered various theories as to why these incidents occur and proposals towards the improvement of the services of the police to the community in order to minimise incidents of accidental discharge. For purpose of brevity, I will touch on only two of those theories. The first relates to the concept of “ police brutality”. The second is eradication of corruption within the police.
1. Police Brutality
The 1999 Constitution imbues citizens of Nigeria with several rights. Those rights are divided broadly into three categories, namely the right to life; the right to liberty and the right to property. These are rights that are inherent to man and are inalienable. Not only are they of universal application, they are also natural rights. The significance of these rights is such that the 1999 Constitution devotes one whole chapter to these rights. The same constitution describes them as Fundamental Rights. Section 33 gives the citizen a right to life; section 34 gives them a right to dignity of their persons; section 35 gives them a right to personal liberty; Section 36 gives them a right to a fair hearing; section 37 gives them a right to private and family life; section 38 gives them a right of freedom of thought, conscience and allegiance and section 30 gives them the freedom of expression. In sections 40-43, the citizen is imbued with the right of peaceful assembly and association; to freedom of movement; to freedom from discrimination and to own and protect his own properties. Acts of brutality will, almost inevitably result in the infringement of these rights enshrined in the constitution. Clearly, initial confrontation, arrest and deprivation of liberty by the police will constitute an infringement of these rights and would, of necessity, have arisen from forcible if not unlawful arrest. Nearly all “accidental” discharge cases” arise from an initial confrontation underscored by a threat (actual or potential) of arrest. In an ideal environment, arrest should be peaceful and uneventful. It is common knowledge that the most controversial aspect of an arrest is the application of force by the arresting police officer. Such use of force in Nigeria has, on several occasions, resulted in citizens arrested being severely maimed or indeed loosing their lives. Circumstances of abuse arise from the use of unauthorised force. Unauthorised force is such force as is not considered by the law to be reasonable. Even with an escaping potential criminal, shooting can never amount to authorised force to prevent such escape if it results in death. But these are extreme cases and unsuitable illustrations. “Accidental discharge” cases are never about escaping suspects. A line between a lawful arrest and brutality can, in most circumstances, be discerned from the manner in which an arrest is effected. Once it assumes the arbitrary, uncontrolled and excessive dimension that often occurs, the action of the police clearly transcends into the sphere of brutality. It is the interface between police brutality and the legitimate enforcement of rights that gives rise to the acrimonious circumstances that, sadly, culminate in an accidental discharge situation.
It need hardly be said that better control of or better use of the power of arrest as well as more responsible demonstration of restraint, even in the face of provocative action, must be incorporated, in a comprehensive manner into the training of police officers. The effect that this will have on reducing acrimonious circumstances should be substantial and should inevitably see to a serious downturn in the occurrence of these cases.
2. Corruption in the Police
Police corruption is a concept that is synonymous with most Nigerians. Sadly, the Nigerian Police is the organisation most associated with corruption in the country. Friends of the police will say that the reputation is not altogether desired, except that theirs is, in all probability, the most visible. The sight of roadblocks within and outside towns in Nigeria, rather than offer assurances, leaves most motorists being constrained to imbibe a “settlement” culture, the N20 Naira note being the currency of business. However, this must be viewed against the background of corruption being endemic in all aspects of the society from which the police is not, predictably, exempt. Regretfully, the situation that we have is that the actions of the police are frequently contaminated by corrupt motives, thereby making the citizen’s feel exceedingly vulnerable, insecure and powerless. As one astute writer so aptly put it: –
“the legal system is built on the assumption that there is an effective and efficient means of law enforcement. This is non-existent in Nigeria where the law enforcement is compromised through corrupt payment. Corruption functions by placing a protective wall round people from anti-social pursuits.
Many would agree without persuasion that corruption is the second name of the police in Nigeria. The evasive corruption includes illicit payments to law enforcement officials. This guarantees immunity from arrest and persecution. Persons who engage in corruption know very well that as long as they are willing to share their illicit gain with the police, they will escape arrest and/or prosecution. Even when they are prosecuted, they often go home free as the police withhold vital evidence of guilt.
The problem of corruption cannot be solved unless the police is completely reformed and adequately equipped to perform as constitutional duties”
Another distinguished Nigerian Social Commentator observes that
“…police corruption elicits serious concern for three significant reasons. First, the police are expected to be moral as well as law enforcement agents. If the police who are employed to prevent and detect corruption, and bring culprits to judgment are themselves stinkingly corrupt, the society’s crusade against corruption is guaranteed to fail. Second, the police exercise powers that have profound implications for the life, property, safety and freedoms of citizens. Where the exercise of such powers is contaminated by corrupt motives, the citizens feel exceedingly vulnerable, insecure and powerless. Third, police corruption is often tantamount to extortion, a form of robbery or demand with force. These dimensions of police corruption explains why the public is threatened by such practices … The most significant source of negative police-community relations is corruption. Corrupt motive is also a source of police brutality. In many circumstances, police brutality is a means of coercing individuals to succumb to demands for bribes, and at some other time, it is a punishment for not cooperating with the police in their demand for gratification.”
Corruption within the police is a drawback to its performance and must be understood in the wider contents. It is a variation of extortion that severely curtails civil liberty. It is a tool that is clearly an impediment for progressive change. These circumstances can be more fully appreciated in the words of Mr Justice Hurley in a case called Osidola –v- Commissioner of Police [1958] LRNRR 42 when he said: –
“while extortion injures the individual who is made to yield to it, bribery injures the common will, not the giver of the bribe. It is made and offence for the protection of the community not for the protection of persons who pay bribe”.
In offences of extortion (which is an integral ingredient of corruption), the public officer, (in this case the police officer) is using his office as a lever to extort money and the payer of the money can usually, if not always, be regarded as a victim, certainly as far as the law is concerned.
D. Operational Drawbacks
This discussion will be incomplete if one does not touch upon some of the key resource and management drawbacks that significantly affect greater effectiveness of the police. Critical among the inadequacies are:
- Inadequate manpower, both in terms of quantity, but more especially of quality;
- Inadequate funding;
- Poor crime and operational information management, including inaccurate recording and collation, poor storage and retrieval, inadequate analysis and infrequent publication of criminal statistics.
- Poor remuneration and general condition of service;
- Inadequate initial and on-the job training and deficient syllabi which places too much emphasis on law enforcement and order maintenance without adequate liberal and broad training that can illuminate the nature and sources of law and criminality;
- Poor resource management;
- Inadequate logistic, arms and ammunition, uniform, telecommunication and transportation facilities – both in terms of quality and quantity;
- Inadequate office and residential accommodation;
- Inhuman conditions under which suspects are held in police cells;
- Un-hygienic working environment.
- Limited contacts or relationship with the citizens outside law enforcement and order maintenance functions;
- Low commitment;
- Indiscipline and involvement in crime or collusion with criminals;
- Lack of integrity;
- Perversion of the course of justice (i.e. procuring and supplying false evidence, tampering with exhibit, and false accusations);
- Poor knowledge of law and disregard for human rights;
- Corruption and extortion;
- Brutality.
E. Conclusion
As an organisation, we know and believe that our darkest days are behind us our relationship with the police has and must continue to improve. The presence of the police today bears some testimony to that improvement. As a responsible social organisation, we have been and will continue to work towards partnership with the police as far as we can to include not only the work that they are doing in the wider community but to the extent that we can, their working conditions. We believe that the units of the police in various states of Nigeria have experienced the warmth of our relationship by virtue of our own little contribution. We know that this relationship can and will continue to improve in the best interest of ourselves and Nigeria as a whole.
I thank you for listening.
ANDREW OBINNA ONYEARU
NAS CAPOON
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SEADOGS (NAS)
