The general principle of law which has received judicial approvals in a plethora of cases is that the Police are not legally empowered to dabble in civil matters. Kure v Commissioner of Police (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1729) 296, Nkapa v Nkume (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 543. The primary duty of the Police as stated in Section 4 of the Police Act 2020 is the prevention of crime, investigation, and detection of crime, and the prosecution of offenders.
One of the civil matters in which the police services have been ignorantly relied upon by Nigerians is land ownership. More often than not, there are proximate examples within us where one of the parties claiming ownership of a land resorts to using the Police to arrest the other party laying claim to the same land. Furthermore, these people justify their actions based on quick resolutions of the Police because it takes the Court so long and in many cases brings a lot of bottlenecks. They chose the quicker version and the police are happy to assist, especially when properly motivated.
The most disappointing thing about this issue is not only the ignorance of the parties involved but also the sheer docility of the Police who are expected to know that they are not meant to dabble in civil matters. It then necessitates the question of whether the members of the Nigeria Police Force even know what they are employed to do? Or maybe they know, but the quest to enrich themselves through illegal means has made them act the way they do?
Rather than seek the police intervention, the proper authority to determine a civil dispute is the Court of law. In Mangai v CP Plateau State & Ors (2021) LPELR-55145(CA), the Court held that: “the law has since been settled, that the Police does not and is not allowed to involve itself in purely civil disputes, especially one touching on land ownership… each time a party’s complaint to the Police involves such issues of land dispute… the standing instruction is for the Police to hands off and advises the parties to seek civil resolution of the dispute in a Civil Court.”
In Okafor & Ors Vs The A. I. G. P. & Ors (2019) LPELR 50980 CA, it was held thus: “there is no doubt that the powers of the police do not extend to the settlement of land disputes. The contents of the letter clearly show that the police allowed themselves to be used to settle scores and to display ego by both parties. If truly the 1st Appellant demolished houses on the land in dispute in disobedience of the Court order which restrained him from further entry into the land during the pendency of the suit, the proper forum to lay complaint is the Court which made the order in the first place.”
That is the law. And I can’t but emphasise the importance of its strict adherence. Failure to adhere often has heavy legal consequences for both the complainant and the Police. The rationale is that in executing the complainant’s request, the Police usually infringe on the fundamental human right of the other party through detention, beating, and several barbaric acts. In Kure v COP (SUPRA), the Court held that: “when a person reports a purely civil matter to the Police, such a person cannot go scot-free, as the report ought not to have been made at all since it is not within the purview of Police duties. It is a report made mala fide and he will be equally liable for the action taken by the Police irrespective of whether he actively instigated them or not since he had no business involving the Police in a purely civil matter in the first place.“
However, a land dispute can degenerate into a criminal matter especially when there is a threat to one’s life. The occurrence of this – especially in land ownership matters – is high. When this happens, the threatened party may lay a complaint before the Police to seek the protection of his life. In such an instance, the officers in charge must display a high level of professionalism by only handling to criminal aspect alone. In Adebo v Omisola, (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.909) P. 175, paras. F-G, the Court held that: “while it is true that the police are not vested with any jurisdiction to decide the rights of parties to land, once the complaint as to ownership of land touches on a threat to life, a law-abiding citizen who has nothing to hide and whose acts or deeds accord with the law would have heeded the invitation of that police man. Also, when a party reports to the police that his life is being threatened, that doesn’t stop him or her from engaging the services of a lawyer to handle the land matter.
Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 