There is this overindulged habit among many Nigerians to involve the police in virtually every dispute, even when the matter is purely civil. This tendency often flows from the posture of _nkari_ or “I will deal with him.”
Unfortunately, that posture has long been rewarded by a system that lacks effective checks and accountability, a system where anything goes.
Last Sunday, while I was conducting an interview with a client, one of his relatives boasted about how he had managed to keep one of his own relatives locked up for a week at Tiger Base, all at his own instance. Curious, I asked what offence the man had committed. It turned out to be a dispute over land boundaries. He noticed the look of disapproval on my face, but that did not matter to him. What mattered was that he had successfully shown his relative _nkari_ by deploying the instrumentality of the police.
My one month stay in Owerri prison opened my eyes to many troubling realities:
First, there is an alarming level of wickedness and ruthlessness in this part of the country, and the policing system often feeds off it for exploitative purposes. It is not surprising that officers reportedly lobby heavily to be posted to the eastern part of Nigeria.
From my personal observation, a significant percentage of people in prison today are there simply because a wealthy or influential member of their extended family wants to show them _nkari_ and assert dominance over them. And you ask yourself, who investigated the allegation of crime before the poor soul was relegated to prison. Some have been there for 10years and counting!
Second, we operate within a system that has little or no effective checks on the powers of the police. In many situations, the police respond not to justice but to influence and financial inducement. The individual who brings more money often commands greater loyalty and dictates the way investigation goes. It is my candid opinion that, in practice, the police uniform sometimes appears to confer a kind of unofficial franchise on police officers, enabling them to go and _hussle_ at the expense of the society.
Third, the judicial system has, at times, inadvertently lent legitimacy to this culture of intimidation either by tacitly enabling it or by failing to decisively curb abuses arising from the misuse of police power. I have often asked a simple question: why should it not amount to professional misconduct when a police prosecutor knowingly brings a defendant before a Magistrate Court that clearly lacks jurisdiction over the alleged offence? Such conduct is not a mere procedural error; it is a deliberate misuse of the judicial process, and the court must be confident to pronounce it so.
It has become increasingly clear that the objective in many of these instances is not prosecution but persecution. What is often intended is for the lower court to decline jurisdiction, refuse bail, and remand the accused person in prison custody. The true motive becomes even more evident when, once the accused person eventually secures bail, all prosecutorial zeal suddenly disappears. At that point, the matter quietly dies, revealing that the initial arrest and arraignment were never genuinely about pursuing justice.
However, the central point I wish to make is simple and clear: the law is settled that the police have no business in debt recovery. There is an avalanche of judicial authorities affirming that the police are not debt recovery agents. Yet people are arrested daily simply because they owe money.
Why does this continue to happen?
One reason is the pervasive _nkari_ mentality.
Another is the absence of consistent disciplinary measures within the police system against officers who engage in unlawful activities. Even where disciplinary mechanisms exist, their application is often selective. The resulting impunity emboldens some officers to act with reckless confidence.
This explains why an officer may brazenly threaten a citizen, “I will shoot you and nothing will happen,” and in some cases carry out that threat with little consequence. In more disciplined societies, such a threat alone would be enough to trigger immediate dismissal.
Lawyers are also familiar with another common refrain from some officers: “You can go to court, I will not release him.”
Just last week, an Investigating Police Officer at Tiger Base dared me, after learning that I had written to the Commissioner of Police regarding a matter involving my client. He mockingly advised me to write not only to the Commissioner of Police but also to the Assistant Inspector General, the Deputy Inspector General, the Inspector General, and even file an action in the Supreme Court, insisting that he would still refuse to release my client’s vehicle.
The circumstances were instructive: My client’s prodigal son had stolen his car and sold it to a car dealer along Aba Road, Owerri. The dealer purchased the vehicle at a suspiciously low price and asked the young man to return later with the original documents to collect the balance. Naturally, the original documents remained with my client.
When my client discovered the car was missing, he began searching for his son. Unknown to him, the dealer had already reported the matter to Tiger Base after the seller failed to return with the documents. The police arrested the son and seized the vehicle.
Upon learning of this development, my client approached the police and informed them that his son had stolen the car. He asked that the son be prosecuted and that the buyer be investigated for receiving stolen property. He also requested that the vehicle be released to him. The Investigating Police Officer whom I shall leave here unnamed refused and insisted that my client must first refund the dealer before reclaiming his own car.
I then wrote a petition to the Commissioner of Police questioning the logic of a situation where a person who had received stolen property now dictates mode of investigation and demands a refund from the rightful owner of that property. Instead of addressing the legal issue, the officer simply dared me to pursue the matter all the way to the Supreme Court.
This raises an important question. Have you ever heard of a police officer being dismissed or seriously disciplined for meddling in debt recovery or purely civil matters? Instances are rare. Often, the officers who previously abused the system remain in service and may even be promoted.
For reasons that often include pecuniary gain and extortion, the police have developed a troubling habit of criminalising essentially civil disputes.
It must also be said that some financial institutions [especially Microfinance Banks] have unfortunately adopted this same flawed approach of using the poilce to recover debts. I say this authoritatively because, in the course of my practice, I represent some banks and have also handled several suits brought by former customers who allege intimidation through police involvement in loan recovery.
In many of these cases, borrowers who defaulted on loans were invited or arrested by the police at the instance of the bank, even though the dispute was purely contractual and civil in nature. This practice exposes the institutions to litigation for unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, and violation of fundamental rights.
The justice system, unfortunately, sometimes worsens the problem with delay which is largely traceable to crippling workload. Only last week, a client consulted me regarding a land dispute. After reviewing his documents, I advised that the appropriate step was to approach the High Court. He frowned. A few days later, he returned to say he preferred involving Tiger Base instead of going to court. I warned him that such an action could expose him to a lawsuit for unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, and breach of fundamental rights if the opposing party chose to challenge it. Still, he insisted that the police would provide quicker results and asked me to draft a petition. I refused. He left my office with his tail in-between his legs. I am hoping he will return later to carry his file.
People must understand that calling the police in purely civil disputes exposes them to potential liability. The person arrested may sue for unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, and violation of fundamental rights.
Therefore, the correct approach is simple.
If someone owes you five million naira or less, approach the Small Claims Court, which is specifically designed for the quick recovery of debts. It is faster, cheaper and less formal. Walk into the Magistrate Court premises of Owerri and make the inquiries. It is designed in such a way that you do not necessarily need a lawyer. However, it’s only advisable that one guides you.
If the amount is above five million naira, consult your lawyer to issue a demand letter and, if necessary, commence proper civil procedure.
We must resist the temptation to weaponise the police against one another. When we do so, we only fuel unnecessary conflict within our communities and enrich a system that too often thrives on abuse.
Let us choose lawful and civilised paths to resolve our disputes.
Chinedu Agu is a lawyer, activist and can be reached through onyeokaiwu@gmail.com or 08032568512.
