Delta CP warns security outfits against torture, unlawful detention

The Delta State Commissioner of Police recently issued a stern warning to security outfits against unlawful detention, torture, and the misuse of power to settle personal disputes. This directive underscores Nigeria's commitment to upholding fundamental human rights, particularly the rights to personal liberty and dignity, as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and reinforced by progressive legislation like the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the Police Act 2020. The warning serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies of their constitutional and statutory obligations, highlighting the severe legal consequences for abuses of power and emphasizing the need for adherence to due process in criminal investigations and arrests. It signals a renewed focus on accountability and the protection of citizens' rights against arbitrary actions by state agents.

The recent warning by the Delta State Commissioner of Police (CP) to security outfits against unlawful detention, torture, and the use of official power to settle personal disputes marks a significant reaffirmation of fundamental human rights within Nigeria's legal landscape. This directive, reported by Punch Nigeria, is not merely an administrative admonition but a critical reminder of the constitutional and statutory safeguards designed to protect citizens from arbitrary state action. It comes at a time when public scrutiny of law enforcement practices remains high, underscoring the imperative for security agencies to operate strictly within the confines of the law. The CP's warning highlights the ongoing challenges of ensuring accountability and adherence to due process in policing, particularly in a jurisdiction grappling with historical issues of human rights abuses by state actors.

The legal framework prohibiting unlawful detention and torture in Nigeria is robust, primarily anchored in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Section 34(1)(a) explicitly guarantees every individual the right to dignity of their person and prohibits subjection to torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Complementing this, Section 35(1) safeguards the right to personal liberty, stipulating that no person shall be deprived of such liberty except in accordance with a procedure permitted by law. Crucially, Section 35(4) mandates that any person arrested or detained must be brought before a court within a reasonable time, typically 24 or 48 hours, depending on the proximity of a court of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 35(6) provides for compensation and public apology for any person unlawfully arrested or detained.

Beyond the Constitution, key legislative instruments have been enacted to operationalize these fundamental rights. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 introduced significant reforms aimed at promoting efficient criminal justice administration and protecting the rights of suspects. Section 8 of the ACJA mandates humane treatment for arrested persons, prohibiting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It also prohibits 'arrest in lieu' (Section 7) and requires the recording of arrests (Section 15) and regular reporting of arrests to magistrates (Sections 29 and 33) to curb arbitrary detention. The Police Act 2020, which repealed the earlier Police Act, further reinforces these protections, emphasizing accountability, fairness, and human rights in policing. Section 37 of the Police Act 2020 specifically reiterates the humane treatment of arrested suspects, while Section 32(2) prohibits police officers from arresting individuals for mere civil wrongs or breaches of contract, directly addressing the misuse of power to settle personal disputes. The Anti-Torture Act 2017 criminalizes acts of torture by public officials, providing for severe penalties and mandating training for law enforcement personnel on the prohibition of torture.

The Delta CP's warning serves as a timely reinforcement of these critical legal provisions, highlighting persistent challenges in their implementation. Unlawful detention, for instance, remains a prevalent issue, often exceeding the constitutionally stipulated 24 or 48-hour period without judicial authorization. Nigerian courts have consistently condemned such practices, as seen in cases like *CHIEF IBRAHIM SALAMI v. PA JOSIAH OYEDIRAN OLAOYE & ANOR (2018) LPELR-47256(CA)*, where a three-day detention without reasonable cause was declared unlawful. Similarly, in *BEEIOR ISHENGE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, PLATEAU STATE & ANOR (2019) LPELR-48390(CA)*, the Court of Appeal found a violation of personal liberty when police failed to charge a suspect within the legal timeframe. These judicial pronouncements underscore the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights and holding security agencies accountable.

The prohibition of torture is absolute under Nigerian law and international human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory. Despite the enactment of the Anti-Torture Act 2017, reports from human rights organizations indicate that torture remains a routine practice in some detention facilities, often used to extract confessions. The Act criminalizes torture and prescribes imprisonment for perpetrators, but effective implementation and prosecution remain significant hurdles. The ACJA 2015 attempts to address this by making statements obtained through torture inadmissible in court, though enforcement can be challenging, particularly for indigent suspects.

The warning against using power to settle personal disputes directly addresses the abuse of office, a practice explicitly prohibited by Section 32(2) of the Police Act 2020 and Section 7 of the ACJA 2015, which forbids 'arrest in lieu'. The case of *Mr. Sunday Addeh Vs Corporal Abudu Sherifat & 3 Ors* illustrates this point, where the court declared that the police have no statutory powers to enforce civil contracts, and an arrest by proxy is unlawful. Such abuses not only violate individual rights but also erode public trust in law enforcement and undermine the rule of law. The Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 provides a mechanism for individuals to seek redress for such violations, allowing for prompt judicial intervention.

While the legal framework is comprehensive, the gap between law and practice persists. Challenges include a lack of awareness among some law enforcement personnel regarding their obligations, inadequate oversight mechanisms, and the slow pace of justice in some instances. The ECOWAS Court of Justice, in *Alade v. the Federal Republic of Nigeria*, highlighted the unlawfulness of prolonged detention, emphasizing the need for prompt judicial oversight. The CP's warning, therefore, serves as a crucial internal directive, aiming to bridge this gap by reminding officers of their duties and the consequences of non-compliance.

Comparative insights from other jurisdictions, particularly within the Commonwealth, reveal similar struggles with police accountability. However, the continuous legislative reforms in Nigeria, such as the ACJA and the Police Act 2020, demonstrate a progressive intent to align national practices with international human rights standards. The effectiveness of these laws, and warnings like that from the Delta CP, ultimately depends on rigorous enforcement, robust oversight, and a sustained commitment to institutional reform.

The Delta State Commissioner of Police's warning is a vital reminder to all security outfits of their constitutional and statutory obligations to respect human rights. For legal practitioners, this directive reinforces the existing legal arsenal available to challenge abuses such as unlawful detention, torture, and the misuse of power. Attorneys must remain vigilant in monitoring compliance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the Police Act 2020, and the Anti-Torture Act 2017. The pronouncements of the courts in cases like *Salami v. Olaoye* and *Ishenge v. Commissioner of Police* provide strong precedents for seeking redress for clients whose rights have been violated.

Practitioners should actively utilize the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 to seek prompt remedies for victims of human rights abuses. This includes pursuing compensation and public apologies for unlawful detentions and ensuring that evidence obtained through torture is challenged and deemed inadmissible. The ongoing emphasis on accountability by senior police leadership, as demonstrated by the Delta CP, offers an opportunity for increased collaboration between the bar and law enforcement to foster a culture of respect for human rights. Moving forward, legal professionals should continue to advocate for the full implementation of these laws, push for greater transparency and oversight within security agencies, and educate the public on their rights to empower citizens against potential abuses.