Police

• Pages: 831-848

POLICE

(1) ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ACTION OF POLICE

2101. Distinction between executive and administrative actions of police.

“He was of the view that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 24 and 29 of the

Police Act Cap. 359 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 relating to police pow-

ers of arrest and detention respectively, the police carried out their statutory function

and not an administrative action. I strongly feel that the trial Judge goofed in the

main. The police executed their statutory duties under the Police Act They carried

out an executive action or decision as a Federal Government Agency. It was clearly

erroneous to side track the executive action taken by the police. It should be stated

that if the police arrest and detain a suspect, such is an exercise of executive action

as imbued by the Police Act. In contra distinction, if the police dismiss one of their

men in line with their regulation, such can be described as an administrative action.”

- Per Fabiyi, J.C.A in U.T.B (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ukpabia Suit No. CA/E/19/99; (2000) 8

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 670) 570 at 579.

(2) CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION

2102. Discretion of the police to investigate allegation of crime.

(1) “But I can see nothing in Section 4 of the Police Act, which denies them of any

discretion whether or not to investigate any particular allegation, or when they decide

to investigate to do so to it’s logical conclusion, The need to execise a discretion in

such a matter may arise from a variety of reasons or circumstances, particularly

having regard to the nature of the offence, the resources available, the time and

trouble involved and the ultimate end-result. It may well be a question of balancing

options as well as weighing what is really in the public interest. It is inconceivable that

such wide powers and duties of the police must be exercised and performed without

any discretion left to responsible police operatives.” - Per Uwaifo, J.S.C. in Fawehinmi

v. I.G.P. Suit No. S.C. 201/2000; (2002) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 767) 606 at 670-671.

(2) “There is no doubt in my mind that the duty of the police under section 4 above

cannot be categorized as being ministerial and as such there is an element of discre-

tion or independent judgment available in it. See: Shitta Bey v. Federal Civil Service

Commission (1981) 1 S.C. 40. Looking closely at the contents of Exhibit GF7, the

respondents may have used them as reason for not embarking on the investigation:

whether that was good reason having regard to their duty under Section 4 of the

Police Act has been fully discussed in the leading judgment.

I do not intend to say more on that other than to agree that police duty under

Section 4 of the Police Act and the duty of the House of Assembly under Section 188

of the 1999 Constitution are mutually exclusive. But the point must be made that the

police have a discretion, in appropriate circumstances in the way they carry out their

duty. When so exercised, it is only in very obvious and exceptional circumstances

that the Court may interfere with their discretion.” - Per Kalgo, J.S.C. in Fawehinmi

v. I.G.P. & Ors. Suit No. S.C. 201/2000; (2002) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 767) 606 at 670.

831

Administrative and executive action of police Paras. 2101,2102

Paras. 2102,2103 Vol. 16 : POLICE 832

(3) “Since the doubt lingers from the cross-examination of P.W.3 that either the

deceased or the appellant could have caused the death, the doubt must be resolved in

favour of the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that the investigation of this case by

the police, that is P.W.1, leaves much to be desired. The accused said in his statement

Exhibit ‘A’ that his co-tenant helped him together with the taxi driver to carry the

deceased to the taxi. Attempt to trace the co-tenant was half-heartedly carried out.

The mother of the so-called co-tenant stayed in the same house as the appellant and

she said that the “co-tenant” lived elsewhere and used to visit her only. No further

effort was made by the police to trace him. Again the appellant mentioned Johnbull in

the same statement. No serious investigation about this was conducted to find out if

he existed; and if so, whether he issued patient’s registration card to the appellant.

It seems also the appellant was not asked by the police to produce the card,

which he said was issued to him by Johnbull, if at all. The taxi driver concerned could

have been traced too by the police to confirm if deceased was alive when she was

put in his taxi but no evidence was given if this was done. All these are necessary

steps, which ought to have been taken if the prosecution were to prove their case

against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In other words the investigation of the

case was shoddy and incomplete. Any defence put, up by an accused person what-

soever whether stupid or spurious must be investigated thoroughly in order to render

it false or unlikely. It is when this happens that the trial Court will be able to reject it.”

- Per Uwais, C.J.N. in Aigbadion v. State Suit No. S.C. 56/1999; (2000) 7 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 666) 686 at 700.

(4) “The police investigation was unsatisfactory. It exhibited lack of commitment and

facilitated the escape of the real perpetrators of the deceased’s untimely death. The

deceased was generally known to be mentally deranged, aggressive and pugnacious

but was entitled to her life.” - Per Ndoma-Egba, J.C.A. in Kalu v. State Suit No.

CA/PH/96/88; (1993) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 279) 20 at 33.

(5) “The appellant is no doubt right in his argument that by virtue of the fact that

Section 214(1) of the 1999 Constitution recognises one police force for Nigeria and

the said police are given a duty under Section 4 of the Police Act [now in Cap. 359],

Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 to prevent and detect crime, apprehend

offenders, preserve law and order, protect lives and property and enforce all laws

and regulations with which they are directly charged, and that it is an important

statutory duty which they owe to the generality of Nigerians and all other persons

lawfully living within Nigeria. It follows that in their duty to detect crime, allegations

of the crime committed by any person should normally be investigated by the police.”

- Per Uwaifo, J.S.C. in Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. Suit No. S.C. 201/2000; (2002) 7 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 767) 606 at 670.

2103. Police privilege to decline to disclose informant.

“Indeed, the police may decline to disclose their informants, if a responsible officer

appears in Court to object to its disclosure.” - Per Ndoma-Egba, J.C.A. in Ahamba.

v. State (1992) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 242) 450 at 458 - 459.