POLICE-COMMUNITY VIOLENCE

IN NIGERIA

Etannibi E.O. Alemika

Innocent C. Chukwuma

Centre for Law Enforcement Education and National Human Rights Commission

1
POLICE-COMMUNITY VIOLENCE

IN NIGERIA

Etannibi E.O. Alemika

Innocent C. Chukwuma

Centre for Law Enforcement Education and National Human Rights Commission

2
 POLICE-COMMUNITY VIOLENCE

IN NIGERIA
_______________________________________________________________

Published by:

Centre for Law Enforcement Education (CLEEN)

1 Afolabi Aina Street, P.M.B 15456,
Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria

Tel: 234-1-493-3195
Fax: 234-1-493-5338
E-mail: cleen@cleen.org
Website: www.kabissa.org/cleen

And

National Human Rights Commission

Plot 800 Blantye Street
Wuse II, P.M.B 444 Garki
Abuja, Nigeria
Tel: 234-9-5238656
Fax: 234-9-5238657
E-mail: humanrights@mlstn.com

3
First published in 2000 by:

Centre for Law Enforcement Education

1 Afolabi Aina Street
P.O. Box 15456
Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria

And

National Human Rights Commission

Plot 800 Blantye Street
Wuse II, P.M.B 444 Garki
Abuja, Nigeria

ISBN: 978-35160-1-9

(c) All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be republished, stored in any
retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying,
mechanical, recording or otherwise, without the prior approval of the publishers.

Typesetting: Stella Onwuka

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables

Acknowledgement

Foreword

Preface

Chapter:

1. Police-Community Violence in Nigeria

2. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

3. Structural Roots of Police-Community Violence

4. Institutional Causes of Police-Community Violence

5. Conclusions and Recommendation

Appendix I: United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials.

Appendix II: United Nations' Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by
Law Enforcement Officials

Appendix III: Questionnaire

5
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables
1.1: Hierarchical Command and Field Operations Structure of NPF

2.1: Social Background of the Respondents

3.1: Cases of Armed Robbery in Lagos, Nigeria

4.1: Contacts with the Police: Stop, Search, Arrest and Detention

4.2: Education and Stop/Search, Arrest and Detention

4.3: Occupation and Stop/Search, Arrest and Detention

4.4: Experience and Observation of Police Brutality

4.5: Education and Police Brutalisation

4.6: Occupation and Police Brutalisation

4.7: Inmates Treatment by Nigeria Police

4.8: Inmates Observation of Police Behaviour

4.9: Inmates Behaviour towards the Police

4.10: Respondents Behaviour towards the Nigeria Police

4.11: Police Response to Suspects' Behaviour

4.12: Police Self-Report Behaviour towards the Public

4.13: Experience of Police with Suspects

4.14: Police Perception of Crime Rates and Public Attitudes

4.15: Level of Education and Perception of Police Effectiveness

4.16: Occupation and Perception of Police Crime Control effectiveness

6
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Centre for Law Enforcement Education (CLEEN) and National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) acknowledge with thanks the funding for this study by the Ford
Foundation. The assistance and understanding of the staff of the Foundation, particularly
the Regional Representative, Dr. Akwasi Aidoo, is highly appreciated.

We also thank the Project Consultant, Dr. Etannibi E.O. Alemika, Associate Professor of
Criminology, University of Jos, Nigeria, for his untiring efforts to see that this study was
completed on schedule.

The Nigeria Police Force and the Nigerian Prison Service granted us permission to
administer questionnaires and interview their personnel and inmates respectively. Their
co-operation is hereby acknowledged and appreciated. We also express our gratitude to
all the respondents and other individuals who have contributed to the execution of this
project.

Finally, we commend the staff of CLEEN and the National Human Rights Commission
who participated in the field research for the study. They are Tony Opara and Sylvanus
Okwunodulu of CLEEN, Tijani Inuwa Babura, Mohamed Sani Umar, Mohamed Sani
Usman and Ibrahim Sodangi of the Commission. We also thank five consultant
researchers that joined our staff for the research. They are Austin Agugua, Sam Smah,
Chidi Nwachukwu, Alabi Williams and Athan Nkemneme.

7
PREFACE

This study examines police–community violence in Nigeria, which is one of the critical
socio-political problems in the country. Two dimensions of police violence are
considered. These are the use of violence against citizens by the police and citizen's
violence against the police.

The study, a national survey on the root causes of police-community violence in Nigeria,
analysed the incidence, extent and pattern of violence by and against the Nigerian police.
Theoretically, we analysed the problem within a broad framework which posit that
violence by and against police are determined by social, political and economic factors
mediated by police institutional ideology and capabilities (and in-capabilities). Violence
was conceived broadly in terms of homicide (at the extreme and rare form), torture
(especially in the context of police interrogation) and brutality in the course of law
enforcement contacts between citizens and police in Nigeria.

The data obtained and analysed in the course of this study indicate that the use of
violence against citizens by the Nigeria Police is common. Although official data on the
subject are difficult to obtain, information derived from the newspapers and
newsmagazines, literature and survey for this study reveal that torture and brutality by
police are widespread. Data also reveal incidence of violence against police by citizens.
The most common form of contact between the police and citizen is involuntary law
enforcement encounter. This occurs more frequently on highways where Nigeria police
mount checkpoints and carry out 'stop and search', and possibly arrest. Unfortunately, this
context has been a fertile ground for police brutality, incivility and corruption; giving rise
to hostile police-public relations, and sometimes violence by and against police.

The political and socio-economic influence on police-citizen violence can be observed in

the entrenched hostility between police and certain segments of the population, such as
labour, students, peasant farmer organisations, pro-democracy and human rights groups,
professional associations and community based advocacy groups, considered to be
'enemies' of the government. These groups are frequently victims of government
instigated police violence by and against the police.

There is widespread ignorance and misperception about the role and powers of the police
by the public. The misperception derives from the historical legacy of using police to
suppress the citizens by colonial and post-colonial governments. Thus, citizens resent
police, even when they are exercising their legitimate powers in the course of legally
permissible law enforcement activities. This resentment sometimes precipitate violence
against police by citizens as well as police reprisals.

Several institutional problems, in terms of qualitative and quantitative inadequacy of men

and women, materials and money within the Nigeria Police Force as well as poor and
inadequate social infrastructure (particularly transportation and telecommunication)
within the Nigerian society, militate against police effectiveness, and positive estimation
of the police by Nigerian citizens.

8
Nigeria needs to restructure and democratise its polity and economy in order to promote
democracy, social justice and human rights, and thereby reduce conflicts between the
government and society, and between police as agents of government and the citizens.

This study is the second in a series of partnership projects between the Centre for Law
Enforcement Education (CLEEN) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
on police reform in Nigeria. The first study examined the role and functions of the
Nigerian police in the post-military era, and led to the publication of the book, policing a
Democracy. The objectives of the present study are to:

1. Evaluate the Nigeria police force regarding its orientation, strategies and performance
and their effects on the relationships between the police and civil society.

2. Investigate, analyse and explain the structural and institutional causes of violence by
police against citizens and violence by citizens against police in Nigeria.

3. Propose a framework for an effective, civil and accountable police force for Nigeria,
that will advance democratic governance and respect for human rights in the nation.

4. Propose a framework for effective involvement of civil society in controlling and

determining the direction and priority of policing in the country

9
 CHAPTER ONE

POLICE-COMMUNITY VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA

Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-
defence or defence of others against imminent threat of death or serious injury, to
prevent the perpetration of a particular serious crime involving grave threat to
life; to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority or
to prevent his or her escape and only when less extreme means are insufficient to
achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only
be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.1

INTRODUCTION

The police are state officials charged with responsibility for ‘law enforcement and order
maintenance’ in society. To discharge these twin responsibilities, the police are
empowered to use force, indeed violence. National constitutions and statutes,
international conventions and rules; police departmental orders and professional ethics
regulate the use of force or violence by police. But despite these provisions, the police in
most societies use force and violence beyond the limits permissible by law.

There are two dimensions of police violence. These are police use of violence against the
citizens and citizens use of violence against the police. The incidence, extent and pattern
of both forms of violence in different communities are determined by social, political,
economic and institutional factors. Police violence is generally conceived in terms of
police brutality, torture and homicide. This study focused on acts of brutality, torture,
unnecessary use of excessive force, lethal use of firearms including extra-judicial
executions of suspects, and sometimes-innocent citizens by the Nigerian police. In
Nigeria, police violence is widespread. Its manifestations include beating and kicking
citizens, unnecessary use of restraints such as handcuffs and leg chains, unnecessary use
of lethal firearms against suspects and members of the public, torture of suspects in order
to extract confession or extort gratification.

In this book, we discussed and analysed police violence in Nigeria. In doing this, we
conceived police violence as a product of social, political and economic structures of
society. We argue that a society with authoritarian political structures and an economic
system characterised by widespread exploitation and inequalities will generate social

1
Principle 9, United Nations' Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by law Enforcement
Officials. Adopted by the Eight United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of
Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990.

10
conflicts. Police violence is often a response by a dictatorial government to repress such
conflicts. In addition, we examined the factors within the Nigeria Police Force that
impact on human rights violations and violent confrontation between the police and
citizens. The study also analysed the use of violence against the police by citizens. This
form of violence is classified as criminally and politically motivated violence as well as
reprisal or reactive violence by citizens against police. Finally, we propose policy
framework for an efficient, civil, responsible, responsive and professional police force in
Nigeria.

POLICE ROLES

Historically and universally, the police have been charged with numerous and diverse
functions. As a result, there are divergent views on the nature and significance of
different police roles.

Consensus-functionalist perspective in social theory, portrays state laws as products and

expression of consensus among the disparate classes and social groups in society over
norms governing their social, political and economic institutions. According this school
of thought, the police being law enforcers are responsible for the enforcement of laws
that promote the common interests of these different classes and groups. For example, in
democratic societies, John Alderson, advocates that the police should:

Contribute towards liberty, equality and fraternity... help reconcile freedom with
security and to uphold the rule of law... facilitate human dignity through
upholding and protecting human rights and pursuit of happiness... provide
leadership and participation in dispelling crimogenic social conditions...
contribute towards the creation or reinforcement of trust in communities...
strengthen the security of persons and property and the feeling of security of
persons... investigate, detect and activate the prosecution of offences, within the
rule of law... facilitate free passage and movement on highways and roads and on
streets and avenues open to public passage ... curb public disorder... deal with
major and minor crises and to help and advise those in distress, where necessary
activating other agencies.1

This is an idealistic vision of police roles, which is characteristic of the consensus-

functionalist perspective of state and law as supra-class, mediating and integrating forces
for harmonious existence in society.

Social conflict perspective in social theory postulates that society is divided into groups
and classes with common interests in some areas and conflicting interests in many
fundamental areas, including the organisation, mobilisation and distribution of economic
and socio-political resources. It has therefore, been argued “that the police were not
created to serve “society” or the “people” but to serve some parts of society and some

1
John Alderson (1979) Policing Freedom London: Macdonald and Evans, p.xi.

11
people at the expense of others”.1 The variation in attitudes towards the police reflects
the differential services rendered by the police to different segments of society. Police
roles vary across societies with different political and economic organisations. For
example it has been argued that in capitalist societies:

The main function of the police has been to protect the property and well being of
those who benefit most from an economy based on the extraction of private profit.
The police were created primarily in response to rioting and disorder directed
against oppressive working and living conditions.2

According to Bowden, the roles of police include the repression of the poor and
powerless in order to protect the interests of the rulers. The police roles, therefore,
include standing as a “buffer between elite and masses” and to perform “the essential
holding operation against the mal-contents until military force could be applied in a
punitive and salutary manner”3 Brodgen puts this view more forcefully, stating that
“Police forces are structured, organisationally and ideologically to act against the
marginal strata”4.

The social conflict theorists concentrate on the repressive aspects of police work in a
society characterised by class conflict, underlined by unequal and inequitable economic
and power relations among groups in society. Their views explain why the poor and the
powerless are more likely to be victims of police violence than the elite is. But police role
is not limited to repression. No government governs by repression alone, precisely
because this renders governance unstable, expensive and unacceptable. Consequently,
rulers also enforce compliance, law and order by means of persuasion, indoctrination and
incorporation of diverse interests into public crime control and law enforcement policies.
In many societies, such as the United States of America, Canada, Britain and other
European nations, police spend more than one-half of their working hours attending to
non-crime-related needs and concerns of citizens or providing social services.

The more realistic view is to see police forces as repressive and service organisations.
Police repress and at the same time serve the public. The priority attached to repressive
and service functions vary across societies and even governments within a society. As has
been argued:
... Police work embodies ironies. Police are instrument of oppression and
exploitation in totalitarian and unjust social systems. Yet they are essential to the
preservation of justice and democracy... The police are guardians of social order.
As an institution, the police force, helps to preserve, fortify and reproduce the
prevailing social order, and are hardly catalysts for its charge. Thus when a social
order is oppressive, exploitative and unjust, the police preserve it by suppressing
and defusing demand for democracy and elimination of oppression and injustices.

1
Institute for the Study of Labor and Economic Crises(1982) The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove: An
Analysis of the US Police (San Francisco, CA: Crime and Social Justice Associates) p.12
2
ibid.
3
T. Bowden(1978) Beyond the Limits of Law (Hammondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.) p.19
4
M. Brodgen (1982) The Police: autonomy and consent (London: Academic Press) P.203

12
 Similarly, in a democratic, just and equitable society, police have greater chances
of serving as vanguard for social democracy, human rights and socio-economic
justice.1

The most valid way to explain police behaviour, including police violence, is in terms of
the social, political and economic order that the police are required to secure, preserve
and fortify. In a free market economy without efficient social welfare services to mitigate
the effects of poverty and inequity, police crime control efforts, especially in the control
of economic crimes, are likely to be significant. Also, where economic efficiency and
equity are not given due considerations; where corruption and distribution of wealth is
highly skewed, police will not only have to contend with high rate of economic crimes
without much public support for their control, but also with hostility towards the police
by those who consider themselves oppressed and exploited. There can be no peace in a
society where wealth - largely ill-gotten - is concentrated in the hands of a few while the
vast majority of its toiling people are condemned to destitution and poverty.

The availability, quality and distribution of social infrastructure also affect police
performance, and police-public relations. These also have impact on the extent and
severity of crimes as well as the capacity of police to respond to the security and welfare
needs of the citizens. The citizens who live in deprived areas of a country are more likely
to be hostile to government and especially to the police which they see as a symbol of an
insensitive and irresponsive government.

POLICE FORCES IN NIGERIA

Nigeria had an estimated population of 89 million in 1991, made up of 50.04% males and
49.96% females.2 Of this population, 44.9% were in 0-14 age group. Nigeria is a multi-
ethnic society with about four hundred ethnic groups.3 The country occupies a land area
of 923,769 square kilometres. Nigeria evolved through the colonial subjugation of
hundreds of societies in the territory between 1861 and 1914. By 1900, the British
colonial government after series of amalgamation of hundreds of nationalities in the
Southern and Northern territories further amalgamated these societies into two political
blocks: Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the Protectorate of Northern
Nigeria. The two blocks were amalgamated in 1914 as a single political entity. The
subjugation of each of the constituent nationalities witnessed the establishment of a
police force or constabulary for the territory. This practice of local and multiplicity of
local police forces continued throughout colonial rule. However, from 1900, there were
also regional police forces. In 1930, a national police force called the Nigeria Police
Force was established. Nigeria became an independent country on 1st October 1960. The
1
E.E.O. Alemika (1993 a) “Criminology, Criminal Justice and Philosophy of Policing” in T.N. Tamuno; I.L
Bashir; E.E.O Alemika, and A.O Akano (Eds.) Policing Nigeria (Lagos: Malthouse Press)p.59
2
National Population Commission (1994) Census’91: National Summary (Abuja: National Population
Commission).
3
O. Otite (1990) Ethnic Pluralism and Ethnicity in Nigeria (Ibadan: C.I. Shaneson).

13
Independence Constitution (1960) and the Republican Constitution (1963) provided for
local police force and the Nigeria Police Force. The military seized power on 15th
January 1966, and dissolved the local police forces, as a result of the negative roles
attributed to the forces during the First Republic (1960-1966). A detailed history of the
evolution of police forces and their roles has been covered in the literature.1

NIGERIA POLICE FORCE

Nigeria currently has a centralised police force - Nigeria Police Force, established in
1930. This was sequel to the dissolution of local police forces in 1966.2 The 1979 and
1999 constitutions explicitly prohibited the establishment of police forces other than the
Nigeria Police Force. Section 214(1) stipulates:

There shall be a Police Force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria
Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this section no other police force
shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.

Organisation of Nigeria Police Force

The Force is organised into 37 Commands and the Force Headquarters. Each of the
thirty-six States and the Federal Capital Territory is served by a Command of the Force.
The Force Headquarters is the office of the Inspector General of Police. The task of the
force is carried out through six departments:

A. Administration and Finance

B. Operations
C. Works and Logistics.
D. General investigation and intelligence
E. Training
A. Research and Planning.

Each of the Departments is under the leadership of an Assistant Inspector - General of

Police. The 37 State Police Commands are further organised into 8 Zonal Commands.

1
See T.N.Tamuno (1970) Police in Modern Nigeria, (Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press): E.E.O. Alemika
(1993b) “Colonialism, State and Policing in Nigeria” Crime, Law and Social Change (20): 187-219;
F.Odekunle (1979) "The Nigeria Police Force: A Preliminary Assessment of Functional Performance”
International Journal of Sociology of Law (7): 61-83; O. Kayode(1976) “Public Expectations and Police
Role Concepts in Nigeria” Police Chief (May): 58-59; See also the following contributions in the
encyclopedic book T.N. Tamuno; I.L.Bashir, E.E.O. Alemika and A.O. Akano (eds.) Policing Nigeria
(Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd. 1993): (a) E.E.O. Alemika “Criminology, Criminal Justice and the
Philosophy of Policing” (pp. 30-78): ( b), O.F.Onoge, “Social Conflicts and Crime in Colonial Nigeria”
(pp151-186); (c) K. Rotimi “Local Police in Western Nigeria; End of an Era” (pp.187-237); (d) P.T. Ahire
“Native Authority Police in Northern Nigeria: End of an Era”(pp.238-261); S.G. Ehindero “The
Organization and Command Structures of the Nigeria Police Force” (pp. 272-301): C.Okonkwo (1966) The
Police and Public in Nigeria (London: Sweet and Maxwell).
2
The Gowon military government dissolved the local police forces, having accepted the recommendation
by the working party on police and prisons constituted by Major – General J.T.U Aguyi-ironsi military
regime in 1966.

14
The Zonal commands are under the command of Assistant Inspectors-General, while
Commissioners of Police are in charge of State Commands. The entire Force is under the
command of the Inspector - General of Police. He is assisted by a Deputy Inspector
General and six Assistant Inspectors-General of Police in charge of A, B, C, D, E, F
departments at the Force Headquarters.1 The Commandants of the Police Staff College,
Jos and Police Academy Wudil, Kano are also Assistant Inspectors General of Police,
while the Police Colleges are commanded by Commissioners of Police, and the Police
Training Schools where recruits are trained are under the direction of Superintendents of
Police.

Functions and Powers of Police in Nigeria.

The colonial police forces in Nigeria performed a variety of functions including:

... investigating and detecting crime, escorting residents and other officials;
prosecuting offenders; guarding goals and prisoners at work outside the precincts
of the prisons, serving summons and executing warrants; patrolling, aiding and
protecting revenue and customs officials, guarding and escorting goods; and
suppressing slave raiding."2

The colonial police were ‘general utility force’. The functions of the Nigeria Police Force
are more clearly stated in section 4 of Police Act and Decree No. 23 of 1979:

The Police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime,
apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life
and property, and due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are
directly charged and perform such military duties within or without Nigeria as
may be required of them by, or under the Authority of this or any other Act.

The police in the country also have statutory powers to investigate crimes, apprehend
offenders, interrogate suspects, prosecute suspects, grant bail to suspects pending
completion of investigation or prior to court arraignment, to serve summons, to regulate
or disperse unlawful processions and assemblies. The police are also empowered to
search and seize properties suspected to be stolen or associated with crime, and “to take
and record for purposes of identification, the measurements, photographs and fingerprint
impressions of all persons... “ in custody (Police Act, Criminal Code, Penal Code).

Police Power and Fundamental Human Rights in Nigeria.

Police powers in Nigeria are counter-balanced by constitutional guarantee of human

rights in the country’s successive constitutions. In chapter 4 of the 1979 and 1999
Constitutions, and under the criminal procedure statutes, the following fundamental rights
are guaranteed.

1
The force was recognized in 1986 along Directorate line but reorganized again in 1997 along department
lines discussed above.
2
Annual Report (1906) of Colonial Nigeria Police by Major Bain

15
1. Right to life, human dignity (freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, torture)
personal liberty, and privacy
2. Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. Right to remain silent during criminal investigation and trial processes.
4. Right to notice of charges within a reasonable period.
5. Right to be arraigned before a court or tribunal, and to a judicial proceeding in
language(s) understood by the suspect (including interpretation of proceeding in
language understood by suspect).
6. Right to be arraigned before a court within a reasonable period.
7. Right to be represented by a counsel of one’s own choice provided one is able to pay
for the services (and to state legal aid for indigent persons in cases of capital
offences)
8. Right to bail
9. Right to cross-examine prosecutions witnesses and to present witnesses
10. Right to speedy trial
11. Right against self-incrimination and compulsion to testify against or for oneself
12. Right to a fair, open and impartial judicial process
13. Right against unduly long detention without trial
14. Right against retroactive laws
15. Right against double jeopardy –(multiple trials for the same offence)
16. Right to an appeal in respect of the decisions of a court of first instance.

Notwithstanding these provisions, these rights are frequently breached at all phases of
criminal justice administration in the country. This is due to several factors, including a
legacy of colonial arbitrariness, excesses of politicians and their manipulation of the
judiciary and police, as well as police and judicial corruption. The most important source
of the infringement of these rights is protracted military rule. Under previous military
regimes, the subsisting Constitutions were suspended, retroactive legislation and ouster
clauses were introduced. Special(military)Tribunals which composition, processes and
rule of evidence fall below the standard prescribed by these rights were established. This
generally resulted in atmosphere of persecution and repression. Police violence, brutality,
and corruption were more common under the military regimes, which promoted or
condoned them.

Police Recruitment and Training

There are three entry levels into the Nigeria Police Force. These are constable, cadet
inspector and cadet assistant superintendent of police levels. The first is a beginning
level, the second, an upper junior level, and the third, the lowest superior police officer
rank. Constables are trained at either Police Training Centres, located in many states
capitals or at the police colleges located at Ikeja-Lagos, Kaduna, Enugu and Maiduguri.
Similarly, Cadet Inspectors are trained at the police colleges (Ikeja, Kaduna, Enugu,
Maiduguri). Cadet Assistant Superintendents of Police are trained at the Police Academy,
Wudil Kano. The training period for constable lasts from six to nine months. The cadet
inspector’s training last twelve months. The duration for the cadet Assistant

16
superintendent is also twelve months. The selection and screening process for recruitment
into the police, especially at junior (constable and inspectorate) levels emphasise physical
stature and stamina. Rigorous tests for psychological and emotional stability, and social
relations' skill are not given adequate attention. The educational requirement for
recruitment into constable and cadet inspector is secondary school certificate with five
credit passes, including English language and mathematics. The educational requirements
for enlistment as a cadet Assistant superintendent of police is a bachelor's degree in any
subject. The curricula for the training of police officers at the constable, inspectorate and
assistant superintendent levels are narrow in scope, emphasising police duties, drill,
physical exercise, and limited knowledge of criminal law and procedure. The content of
the training is deficient in liberal subjects such as sociology, psychology and political
science. Furthermore, refresher training for officers is infrequent. These inadequacies
associated with selection, screening, testing and refresher training of officers at different
times in their career adversely impact on discipline, orientation, attitude, performance and
conduct of Nigeria Police.1

For the purpose of command, the Police Regulation (CAP 359 of the Law of the
federation of Nigeria, 1990) in sections 11-24, provides for the following field operations
structure.

Fig. 1.1: Hierarchical, Command and Field Operations Structure of NPF

NO. Command Level Commander

1. Force Headquarters (National) Inspector-General
2. Zonal Command (group of state commands) Assistant Inspector-General
3. State Command Commissioner
4. Area Command (a group of Divisional
Commands) Assistant Commissioner
5. Divisional Command Assistant Superintendent of
Police (or higher rank)
6. District Command Inspector (or higher rank)
7. Police Station Sub-Inspector (or higher
rank)
8. Police Post Corporal (or higher rank)
9. Village Post Police Constable (with a
minimum experience or
higher rank

The Force Headquarters, state and divisional commands, are the most critical in the field
operation management of the Nigeria Police Force. In spite of and perhaps because of
this long-chain of command, the police force is not accountable to the various territorial
levels, which it serves.

1
P.E. Ebo (1993) “ Human Resources Management and Policing” in Tamuno et al (eds.) Policing Nigeria (
Lagos : Malthouse Press). Pp. 356 – 390.

17
 Social History of Police-Community Violence in Nigeria

Police–community violence has been a recurring problem in Nigeria since colonial rule.
The British colonial government established police forces in the territory and organised
them as constabulary and para-military forces. The Forces were employed in various
colonial wars and punitive expeditions. They were also used in maintaining the
exploitation and repression of labour.1 In some of these cases, the police used “batons,
rifles and revolvers”, to suppress, maim and kill persons who opposed colonial rule and
policies.2 Because of the incessant repressive deployment of police against workers
during colonial era, Professor Tamuno notes that “the police earned the displeasure of
some trade union leaders and members, a factor which did not promote good public
relations as far as the workers were concerned”.3 The frequent use of police to scuttle,
disperse and break strikes led to the killing of twenty-one miners and fifty wounded
workers during the Enugu colliery strike in 1949.4 The Colonial Government deployed
the military and police to suppress the women’s riot (December 1929 - January 1930) in
the Eastern parts of the territory, resulting in the death of fifty-five women and serious
injury to more than fifty women.5

The “police action” to quell the Tiv riot of 1960, by official estimate led to the killing of
19 civilians, while 83 were injured.6 These instances indicate that the police forces in
colonial Nigeria employed violence in the maintenance of colonial exploitation and
oppression: “colonial police forces [in Nigeria] were organised and oriented to behave as
occupation forces - ruthless, brutal, corrupt, dishonest and prone to brutalising the
colonised peoples and vandalising their properties.” 7 In analysing police behaviour,
including violence, in contemporary Nigeria, it is important to recognise the police legacy
bequeathed to Nigeria by British colonial administration. For as has been argued:

The history of police in Nigeria shows that the various forces ... were structured to
regulate and regiment the indigenous people and facilitate their exploitation. The
earlier police forces were organised as mercenary units and employed in several
punitive expeditions to maim and kill “belligerent natives” and to burn and loot
obstructionist villages.8

A newspaper, The Lagos Standard published during the colonial era, captured the deeds
of colonial soldiers and police in the following words:

1
Tamuno (1970) chapter 9, op. cit. records the use of colonial police forces to violently suppress workers’
strike (1945, 1947, 1949), and Women’s riots (1929 - 1930; 1948) as well as communal riots in Kano
(1953) and Tiv land (1929 - 1960).
2
ibid. P.220.
3
ibid.
4
ibid. p. 223.
5
ibid. p. 225.
6
ibid. p. 238.
7
E. E. Alemika (1988) “Policing and Perceptions of Police in Nigeria” 11(4): 161-176.
8
E. E. O. Alemika (1993b), op. cit. p. 202.

18
 The soldiers of the Lagos Government placed in different towns... have not
secured for themselves or this government a good reputation.... reports have been
born to this colony testifying that they have ceased to keep the peace, that on the
contrary they have turned themselves loose upon the people, filling the role
vacated by kidnappers, and rioters ... marauders and free booters... there is one
painful cry echoing from town to town, from city to city of the evil deeds of the
Lagos Constabulary. Goods have been seized from traders, maidens have been
assaulted, youths have been plundered, men have been browbeaten and women
have been robbed....1

Colonial governors established and maintained repressive police forces. This legacy
bequeathed to the nation’s post-colonial rulers, constitute a source of continuing police –
community violence in the country. Professor Onoge notes that:

The burden of colonial policing was the subordination of the national interests of
the people to the political and economic interests of the state. Through armed
mobile patrols, raids, arrests and detention, the raiding of labour camps and the
violent suppression of strikes, the police ensured the creation, supply and
discipline of the proletarian labour force required by colonial capitalism...Public
order took on the character of the repressive mood of a police state. The police
enforced the abrogation of civil liberties... and the criminalisation of whole groups
of people to prepare them for collective punishment.2

The forgoing discussion shows that police violence was widespread and institutionalised
during colonial rule. This is because colonialism rests on political and economic violence.
Generally, police violence thrives under dictatorial political system and exploitative
economic relations. Colonialism is an embodiment of both, hence the pervasive incidence
of police violence in colonial Nigeria.

Police violence did not end with Nigeria’s independence from colonial domination and
oppression. This may be explained in terms of the two primary causes of police violence -
political and economic inequities. The political source of police violence is attributed to
authoritarian political and judicial structures. Since independence, Nigeria has been
unable to enthrone and consolidate civil rule, as a step towards transition to democracy
and good governance. The First Republic (October 1960-January 1966) and Second
Republic (1979-1983) were characterised by political intolerance among politicians and
political manipulation of the police. In their bid to gain or maintain political power, the
politicians employed the police to unleash violence on their opponents. It was reported
that the government of Western Nigeria during the First Republic (1960-1966) embarked
on:

1
The Lagos Standard, March 6, 1985, p.2, quoted in S. C. Ukpabi (1987) The Origins of the Nigerian Army
(Zaria: Gaskiya corporation) p. 53-54.
2
Onoge (1993) op. cit. p. 178.

19
 Mass recruitment into local authority forces of thugs and party stalwarts against
whom the police should give protection to the ordinary people. These people it
was alleged carried out their paid duty of thuggery in local government police
uniforms, under the full weight of governmental support.1

Similarly, in the Northern Region, “political opponents were arrested by native authority
police... handcuffed or chained and marched through the streets.”2, because they engaged
in opposition politics. Rotimi, in an extensive review of the behaviour, deeds and
especially the political manipulation of police forces in Western Nigeria, offered the
following explanations for politically induced police violence in the country.

...A major instrument for harassing political opponents in the years before 1966
was the NA/LG (Native Authority/Local Government) . police... Politicians in
power were inclined to use police, first because of the socialisation processes that
the successor-elite had undergone under colonial rule. The colonial state was an
authoritarian one, largely intolerant of opposition. Second, it was necessary for
mediating the intra-elite struggle for political power and economic privilege by
political class. Third, it was necessary for the protection of ethnic power bases of
the ruling elite from intrusion by other ethnically based political parties. Fourth, it
was used to show off power to the supporters of the opposition parties... Fifth, it
was useful to guarantee for the bodyguards or thugs of the power holders,
immunity from the long arm of justice whenever they committed illegal acts.
Sixth, it was ultimately vital for the perpetuation of the governing elite in
power."3

These explanations account for the political abuse of police authority or power by
politicians in Nigeria. But why is the Nigeria police vulnerable to political manipulation
especially their use by the rulers to inflict violence on their opponents. Rotimi argues
that:
The amenability of policemen to be used by politicians was influenced by one,
conformity with their general duty of maintaining law and order. Two, the
operational control of the police. Three, the desire of opportunist policemen to
secure or advance their careers. Four, the offer of immediate material rewards by
politicians ... Five, the sympathy of the individual policemen for the ideals of
party in power or for individuals in the party hierarchy to whom they might be
related by blood or other personal ties."4

These observations call for caution by the advocates of state police forces because the
orientation of the politicians is still largely antithetical to democratic values. Rotimi’s
observations, also point to the fact that Nigeria requires a framework for the
accountability of the police to the civil society more than in individuals holding executive

1
Working Party on Police and Prisons (1966) Report (Lagos: Federal Government Press) p. 13-14.
2
O. Ohonbamu (1972) “The Dilemma of Police Organization under a Federal System: The Nigerian
Example” The Nigerian Law Journal (6): 73-87.
3
K. Rotimi (1993) op. cit. p. 203.
4
ibid.

20
powers. The creation of independent police complaint review boards made up of
representatives of government, police and civil society organisations at the national, state,
divisional and sub-divisional levels, by the federal constitution will be an important step
in this direction.

The protracted military rule in the country is another important source of police violence.
Military rule elevated the culture of violence and impunity created in Nigeria Police
Forces since colonial era, to the level of state policy. Indeed, during Abacha regime,
many police officers expressed in private, their dissatisfaction with their job because they
felt unable to defend police violence and repression that became widespread. Under the
successive military regime, reports a Nigeria Newsmagazine,

... Uniformed men in the police, army, navy, and airforce, customs and uniformed
para-military professions- (inflicted) violence on their fellow citizens. Their
stock-in-trade is the brutalisation of civilians, often without provocation.1

Indeed, students and workers suffered collective punishment and violence from the police
and military under successive military regimes in the country.2

Extent and Pattern of Police Violence in Nigeria

Violence by police in Nigeria, is not only widespread, but is also manifested in several
ways. The report of a national study of the Nigerian criminal justice system provided an
insight into the extent of police violence in the country. According to the report, based on
882 respondents drawn from suspects in custody across the country:

Nearly half of the accused persons interviewed (48.7%) stated that their arrest
involved insult or abuse by the police. Roughly half (51.1%) of the accused
persons interviewed indicated that their arrest did not involve use of physical
force by the police, however, 35.9% were rough handled or slapped; 7.4% were
beaten with a baton; and 3% were threatened with a gun. As to why force was
used on them, 24.2% said they did nothing to warrant the use of force, 3% resisted
arrest, while 1.6% returned verbal abuse. 5.2% were assaulted because they
questioned police behaviour; and 22.5% were assaulted because they either
refused to admit the offence or make a statement.3

Police violence in the form of summary executions occurs frequently among Special Task
Forces assigned to the patrol of highways and cities to curb armed robbery. Police torture
in the form of physical assault frequently occurs at all levels of police work- crowd
control, arrest, investigation, and detention. The use of violence by the police against
citizens has been recognised as a widespread and persistent problem in the country by the
government, public and even the police authority. As a result, senior government and

1
African Concord May 5, 1957 p. 14.
2
Alemika (1993b) pp. 208-211.
3
M. A. Ajomo and I.E. Okagbue eds (1991) Human Rights and Criminal Justice Administration in Nigeria
(Lagos: Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) p. 122.

21
police officials at various times warned against the practice. However, senior government
officials usually fail to acknowledge that police violence thrives because of the
undemocratic political structures and unjust economic relations in the country.

Professor Ikhariale has argued that:

For a society going through tremendous socio-political stress brought

about by a combination of political and economic misadventure, and
compounded further by a governing machinery that is, bedevilled by an
un-abating credibility crises, official attempts to forcibly contain, suppress
or redirect the natural behaviour pattern of the citizenry which is
fundamentally at variance with the wishes and aspirations of the people,
there are bound to be conflicts of immeasurable proportions which at
times had been tragic. The government quite predictably had resorted to
criminal legislation in its effort to overcome these…socio-political
contradictions thus created. This development has produced a social order
which is comparable to a police state…the regular and indiscriminate
incidents of arrests, detention, torture and illegal execution under the
pretext of law enforcement had brought large scale violation of human
rights of suspects, prisoners, their relatives and a variety of other
groups…1

Apart from the political and economic foundations of violent encounter between the
police and citizens, several aspects and problems of the institutional management of
Nigeria Police play important roles in promoting or inhibiting violence by and against
police in Nigeria. These institutional factors include (a) scope and context of police-
citizen contacts, and (b) quality of police services which are influenced by quality and
quantity of human and material resources available to police. These factors influence
police-public relations and level of violence between the police and citizens.

Explanations of police violence in the literature have tended to emphasise these

institutional factors more than the structural, (political and economic) factors. Yet, these
factors are secondary to structural factors in the incidence of police-citizen violence.
Nonetheless, police violence can be explained in terms of the individual, situational and
organisational factors. According to Friedrich:

The individual approach tries to explain police use of force in terms of the
characteristics of the officer… the situational approach seeks to account for
police use of force by relating it to the specific characteristics of the situation in
which police encounter citizens…The organisational approach sees the use of

1
M.A Ikhariale (1995) “ Justice in the Accusation: a Constitutional Evaluation of the Nigerian Criminal
Justice System” in Chukwuma Innocent and Akin Ibidapo-Obe (eds) Law Enforcement and Human Rights
in Nigeria. (Lagos : Civil Liberties Organisation). page 90.

22
 force as a product of the organisational setting or some aspects of the setting
within which it occurs.1

Those who explain police violence in terms of the pathology of officers emphasise the
deficit in their education, social relations' skill, and psychological and moral quality. In
contrast, the situational approach focuses on the context of police-citizen contacts. The
organisational approach emphasises the role of leadership, quality of training and
facilities, departmental rules, discipline and reward system, internal control within police
departments as well as the degree to which the police are accountable to the public.
These factors are no doubt important. In Nigeria, the average policeman is inadequately
educated for the roles he is expected to play. Further, he is inadequately trained for the
police work, he is poorly remunerated and equipped and resented by the public.
Consequently, he is prone to react to public demand for effectiveness and politeness
rather cynically and aggressively.

The scope and context of contacts between the police and citizen are largely restricted to
law enforcement situations. These are situations which citizens consider restrictive and
therefore resent. The ineffectiveness of Nigerian police, arising from inadequacy of
human resources, facilities and funds, lowers the estimation of the police in the eyes of
the public. These conditions alienate police from the public and engender police–citizen
hostility and violence. The Nigeria Police Force is understaffed, underfunded and under
equipped. The force also has not enjoyed stable and effective leadership for decades. As a
result, discipline and motivation of officers suffer.

The climate of authoritarian governance in the country provided the police with license to
violate citizen’s rights, injure, maim, torture and kill citizens with impunity2.
The Nigerian Police are also victims of violence by criminals; by individuals aggrieved
by government policies and police repression of government critics, and by inter - and
intra community conflicts3.

Contacts between the police and citizens are the heart of police work. Therefore, the
scope, extent and context of police–citizen contacts are important factors in the incidence
of violence between the citizen and the police. Literature has shown that police are eager
to dominate the citizen during police-citizen interactions. When citizens resent this, the
police may resort to coercive and violent actions. Citizens who feel that they have been
mistreated may also violently attack the police. Thus, police-citizen contacts may be
characterised by co-operation or conflict, depending on the character of the economy,

1
R.J. Friedrich (1980) “Police Use of Force: Individuals, Situations and Organizations”, The Annals
(November): 82-97 at pages 84.
2
E.E.O Alemika (1993b), op.cit; Akin Ibidapo Obe (1995) p.cit; F. Odekunle (1979) op.cit
3
K Rotimi (1993) op.cit; Tamuno T.N (1991) Peace and Violence in Nigeria (Lagos: Panel on Nigerian
History Project; S.G. Ehindero (1998) The Nigerian Police and Human Rights (Jos: Ehindero Press.

23
polity and community, and on the character and scope of contacts between the public and
police.

Statutorily Prescribed Police Ethics in Nigeria

The Police Act prescribe that:

In the individual exercise of his powers as a police officer, every police officer
shall be personally liable for any misuse of his powers, or any act done in excess
of his authority.1

The ACT also provides that “every police officer is required to use his best endeavour to
uphold the good name of the force, and to further good relations with the public.”2
Consequently, the ACT prescribes that a police officer shall “be determined and
incorruptible in the exercise of his police duties” and shall “have a strict regard to the
correctness of his general behaviour”3 furthermore, the ACT requires Nigerian police
officers to develop the following attributes:

(a) Efficiency and thoroughness through meticulous attention to details in the

performance of his duties;

(b) Courtesy, forbearance and helpfulness in his dealings with members of the public

(c) Tact, patience and tolerance, and the control of his temper in trying situations;

(d) Integrity in refusing to allow religious, racial, political or personal feelings or

other considerations to influence him in the exercise of his duties.

(e) Impartiality, the avoidance of feelings of vindictiveness towards offenders;

(f) Strict truthfulness in his handling of investigations and in the giving of evidence4

The literature on police conduct and performance in Nigeria, indicates that these statutory
provisions are violated by majority of police officers due to political, economic,
institutional, individual and situational factors discussed above.

1
Section 341 Police Act CAP 359 of the laws of the federation of Nigeria 1990.
2
Ibid s.338.
3
ibid. S.339.
4
ibid s.340.

24
Summary

Review of literature and experience indicate that police violence thrives in Nigeria for
the following reasons:

• Undemocratic political structures, and the quest by rulers to suppress opposition to

dictatorship, involve the use of police to coerce or repress citizens.

• Lack of political accountability by the rulers, which encourage lawlessness by

government agents, encourage police to act beyond the law.

• Inequitable economic system, breeds socio-economic conflicts that threaten the

interests of the rulers and require the deployment of the police by economic and
political power-holders for the suppression of some segments of society.

• Protracted military rule led to the establishment of joint-operation task forces

consisting of Armed Forces personnel and the police, to combat crimes, to mount
check-points, to monitor the distribution of petrol to filling stations, and to monitor
fertiliser distribution, and waste disposal. These did not only become fertile grounds
for bribery, extortion and sharp practices but also license for unrestrained use of force
against the citizens. The militarisation of the police in these respects compound the
‘kill and go’ syndrome which was in the past only dominant among the personnel of
Police Mobile Force, but now pervasive throughout the Nigeria Police Force.

• The use of police to suppress socio-economic discontents among workers, students

and disempowered groups in society, often result in violence by and against police.

• Inadequate training of police officials, lead to misuse of arms and ammunitions

against citizens.

• Inadequate supervision of junior police personnel encourage brutality towards

citizens.

• Hostile police-public relations precipitate police-community violence.

• Stress - frustration by police officers in response to high crime rates, poor conditions
of service, dearth of crime control facilities, especially transportation and
communication, arms and ammunition, precipitate violent law enforcement strategies.

• Poor screening of police recruits leads to the recruitment of psychologically and

socially unstable persons into the police force, who are prone to violence in the
course of law enforcement.

25
• Poor appreciation of structural and resource limitations, demands and stress of police
work in Nigeria, lead to unrealistic demand on police to fight crime without necessary
facilities, resulting in the use of the most brutal method of crime control.

• Lack of public respect for the police due to the arbitrary and unjust laws they are
called upon to enforce, leads the police to forcefully assert their powers and authority.

These factors, which are by no means exhaustive, combine in different ways to provoke
violence by and against the police in the country. The solution to the problem demands
adequate analysis of these and other relevant factors and the design of appropriate
measures to address them.

26
 CHAPTER TWO

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This study investigates the root causes and patterns of police-citizen violence in Nigeria.
It examines the use of violence by the police against citizens as well as the use of
violence against the police by citizens. The methods adopted for the collection and
analysis of the study are described below.

Population and Sample

The survey method was adopted as the principal method for the study. The two
populations for the study are the police and the public. The public population was defined
to include the prison inmates. In order to obtain a fairly representative perspective from
the populations, data were collected from the public in fourteen of the country’s thirty-six
states, grouped into six geo-political zones. Data from the prison inmates were obtained
from three prisons.

The literature on police–citizen violence has identified several factors that explain police
–citizen contacts and conflicts. Such factors include historical, political, legal, economic
and organisational environments, as well as socio-biographical factors like age, sex,
education and occupation. The questionnaire was designed to capture the relationships
between these socio-biographical variables and police-citizen contacts. For a wider
representation of respondents from diverse social background, a quota sample method
was adopted for the administration of questionnaires among the public (excluding prison
inmates) as follows: fifty-five questionnaires were distributed in each of the following
fourteen-states in the six geo-political zones.

1. North-Central:
Kwara
Plateau

2. North–Eastern
Adamawa
Borno

3. North-Western
Jigawa
Kaduna
Sokoto

4. South –Eastern
Anambra
Imo

27
5. South-South

Akwa Ibom
Edo
Rivers

6. South-Western
Lagos
Ondo

General Public Sample

The following quota were assigned to the groups, within the general population,
identified below:

A) commercial drivers/motor park touts(11)

B) market women (5)
C) students (15)
D) human rights activists and lawyers (10)
E) professionals and middle socio-economic status (14)

Fifty-five questionnaires were therefore distributed to these groups in each of the fourteen
states. A total of 670 questionnaires were distributed and 637 completed questionnaires
were returned by these groups in the selected fourteen states of the federation.

Prison Inmates Sample

A prison was selected, for the administration of questionnaires to inmates, in each of the
three old regions of the country - East, North and West. The three prisons are located in
Owerri, Kaduna and Lagos. Eighty (80) questionnaires were administered in each of the
prisons. Out of a total of 240 questionnaires that were distributed, 197 completed
questionnaires were returned.

Police Sample

Two hundred and ten questionnaires were distributed to the police across the fourteen
states. A total of 159 questionnaires were completed and returned.

The primary data for the study were therefore obtained from 993 questionnaires as well
as responses from in-depth interviews with members of the public and police personnel.
Official statistics and documents, and academic literature supplemented the primary data.

28
The sampling procedure used was an admixture of quota, purposive and convenience
methods. A quota was allocated to groups that were purposively selected, and
respondents were picked on the basis of convenience or availability. These methods were
used because they are useful for generating required data at relatively lower costs than the
classical random sampling method. Respondents were picked on the basis of the
prospects of their contact with the police. Experience and contact with the police are
important factors in the public estimation of the police and police-community violence.

Ideally, a random sampling method should have been used, in order to test hypotheses
and advance generalisable statements about police-community violence. However the
primary objective of the study is to describe the causes and pattern of police-community
violence. The methods chosen are therefore appropriate. Nonetheless, caution should be
exercised in the generalisation of the findings. The social characteristics of the
respondents across the country are summarised in table 2.1 below.

Table 2:1 : Social Backgrounds of Respondents

Public Prison inmates Police

Sex:
Male 67.2 (420) 88.1 (171) 86.8 (138)
Female 32.8 (205) 11.9 (23) 13.2 (21)

Age:
15-24 19.1 (121) 11.8 (39) 3.1 (5)
25-34 45.6 (289) 42.1 (83) 13.2 (21)
35-49 30.5 (60) 32.1 (51)
29.3 (186)
50 and older 6.0 (38) 7.6 (15) 6.9 (11)

Education:
None 2.2 (14) 2.6 (5) 0.0 (0)
Non-formal/religious 3.3 (21) 1.5 (3) 0.0 (0)
Primary 6.8 (43) 20.5 (40) 8.4 (13)
Secondary 21.8 (137) 46.2 (90) 53.5 (83)
Post secondary 65.8 (414) 29.2 (57) 38.1(59)

Occupation:
Unemployed 16.9 (105) 13.8 (27)
Farming, petty 7.2 (45) 18.5 (36)
trading
Driver, motor touts 10.3 (64) 7.7 (15)
Junior employees 6.9 (43) 7.7 (15)
Intermediate 8.0 (50) 7.2 (14)
employees
Senior employees 18.6 (116) 7.2 (14)
Business and Self 12.8 (80) 28.2 (55)

29
Employed
Others 19.3 (120) 9.7 (19)

Notes
1. These exclude respondents with whom in-depth interviews were conducted.
2. Figures in parenthesis beside percentages are actual figures or frequencies

Data Collection Instruments

Two sets of instruments were designed. These were interview and questionnaire
schedules. Three separate questionnaire schedules were designed for administration to the
general public, prison inmates and the police. The questionnaires were structured; that is,
they consisted of close-ended questions (with pre-coded responses). However, the
interview schedules designed and used for in-depth interview of members of the public
and the police were unstructured.

Data Analysis

The completed questionnaires were analyzed using the computer. The Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to generate frequencies, percentages and
contingency (cross –tabulation) tables. Being a descriptive study, the analysis of the data
presented comparative and relative frequencies and percentages within and between
variables. The data analysis was situated within Nigeria’s socio-political environment
that shape police- community relations and violence.

30
 CHAPTER THREE

STRUCTURAL ROOTS OF POLICE-COMMUNITY VIOLENCE

Introduction

Police–community violence may be analysed at two levels. These are structural and
institutional (police organisation) levels. In this chapter, we analysed the structural roots
of police – community violence in Nigeria within the contexts of political repression and
economic exploitation that characterise colonial and post-colonial Nigeria polity and
economy. The structural level explains the extent, pattern and persistence of violence
between the police and citizens since colonial rule. Although the institutional sources of
police-community violence explain the incidence and nature of violence, the point is that
these sources are very important only to the extent that the political and economic
systems of society create, sustain and promote the conditions for conflicts and
antagonisms in which police-citizens contacts and violence take place. Police-community
violence has persisted for so long and on a large scale because it is a product of unending
system of political repression and economic exploitation characterised by conflicting
interests of different groups in society. This chapter provides a historical discussion of the
political and economic roots of police violence as well as public antagonism towards
Nigeria police.

Colonialism and police–community violence

The process leading to the creation of colonial Nigerian State started around the fourth
decade of nineteenth century, when Britain established a consular office in Lagos to
promote and protect her commercial interests, and to prosecute its slave abolition
crusade. In 1861, after a period of destabilisation of Lagos, British colonialists compelled
the ruler of the city to cede the territory as a colonial property. Thus, Lagos was acquired
as a colonial territory through the use of violence by British forces. Violence was
therefore, the foundation of colonial Nigeria.

When Lagos was proclaimed a colony in 1861, a small detachment of policemen was
established by the acting consul, Mackorskry, who was in the territory as a trader. The
period between 1861 and 1904 witnessed British colonialists subjecting the estimated
four hundred nationalities1 to their domination. As each of the nationalities was subjected
to colonial rule, the British established police forces and constabulary to protects its
interests.2 These forces and constabulary were armed and organised as quasi-military
1
O. Otite (1990) Ethnic Pluralism and Ethnicity in Nigeria (Ibadan: Shaneson, C.I.Ltd).
2
E.O.O Alemika (1993a) “colonialism state and policing in Nigeria” Crime, Law and Social Change,
20:187-219. The police forces and constabulary were ‘McCorsky Police/Consular Guard (1861), Armed
Police Force (1863), Gold Coast Constabulary (1876), Lagos Constabulary (1886). The Lagos Police

31
squad. Such forces in different territories were made up of officials who were strangers in
communities where they were employed. The purpose of this practice of alienating the
police from the community they serve, was to ensure that such officials, when deployed
to execute punitive expedition would act as an army of occupation1 and deploy maximum
violence on the community. An example of this was in 1863, when the colonial
Governor of Lagos Colony, H.S Freeman wrote a letter to the Duke of Newcastle in
which he highlighted the advantage of an estranged police for the colonial government.
According to him, deploying policemen to areas where they are aliens will foster
effective deposit of violence in the community policed. Consequently, Freeman reported
that:

The men [Hausamen recruited into the force in Lagos Colony] being from the
interior and professing the mussulman [Muslim or Islam] religion are hated by the
natives of these parts who have hitherto only known them as their slaves. They
[Hausas] are disliked also by the Europeans as being of a more independent
character than the Lagos people. They thus have only the government to depend
on, and if properly managed will prove a valuable resource to this settlement.2

The arrangement did “prove a valuable resource” to the colonial government. As a result,
thirty years later in 1893, another colonial governor, Denton in a letter to Rippon in
London, reported that:

In our Hausa force we have a body of men dissociated from the countries
immediately around Lagos both by birth and religion, and who are as a matter of
fact the hereditary enemies of the Yorubas. This is such an enormous advantage in
any interior complication [opposition to colonial rule] that I should be sorry to see

(1895-1897), Annesly Police (1889); Oil Rivers Irregular (1892); Court messengers (1892), Niger Coast
Protectorate Constabulary (1894), Niger District Police (1900-1905), Southern Police Force (1902),
Southern Police Force (1917), Royal Niger Company Constabulary (1888), Northern Nigeria Constabulary
(1903), Northern Nigeria Police (1917) and Nigeria Police Force (1930). For details of these forces, see the
encyclopaedic Historical work of T.N Tamuno (1970) Police in Modern Nigeria (Ibadan, Ibadan
University Press) and E.E.O.Alemika (1930a). From 1914 –1966, there was a dual police system- those
established by colonial forces, and local police forces that were managed by colonial surrogates—
traditional rulers and native authorities. For detailed discussion of these latter forces see Kemi
Rotimi(1993) and P.T Ahire (1993) both in T.N Tamuno, I.L Bashir, E.E.O Alemika and A.O Akano (eds)
Policing Nigeria : Past, Present and Future, (Lagos: Nigeria Police Force and Malthouse Press).
1
E.E.O. Alemika (1993a) ibid. and E.E.O Alemika (1998) “Policing and Percerptions of
Police in Nigeria Police Studies 11 (4): 161-176, and P.T Ahire (1991) Imperial Policing
(Milton Keynes: Open University Press
.
2
Letter from Governor H.S Freeman to Duke of Newcastle on December 31, 1863
National Archives, Ibadan:cso /i/i/i. This force was also known as the Armed Hausa Police Force,
because it consisted largely of Hausas who had been freed from slavery around Lagos. Thus creating
enemity between the public and the Police, was a colonial Policy implemented through recruitment and
employment, in order to achieve effective containment of opposition to colonial rule. See E.E.O. Alemika
(1988) ibid, Tamuno (1970), Chapter 1, op.cit for further discussion.

32
 it abandoned if it were possible to obtain a supply of recruits in any other way
(emphasis added).1

In essence, there was a colonial interest in ensuring hostility and violence between the
police and the citizens. The colonial government organised the police as instrument of
riot, opposition and suppression. They were not established as agents for promoting rule
of law, human rights, and community safety and individual security or for delivering
social services.2 The colonial police forces were therefore used in punitive expeditions to
further the goal of colonial annexation of territories,3to suppress opposition against
colonial exploitation and extortion by killing women protesters and striking workers.4
The colonial legacy of police despotism has been captured:

…. Historical evidence demonstrates that the colonial police forces were

organised and oriented to behave as occupation forces – ruthless, brutal, corrupt,
dishonest and prone to brutalising the colonised peoples and vandalising their
properties… The preoccupation of colonial and post-colonial Nigeria police were
not the promotion and enforcement of just laws, rule of law, natural justice and
equity and security of the vast majority of Nigerians, as colonial surrogates often
claimed… the greatest part of the police energies and resources were committed
to, and dissipated on, the suppression of struggles and protests against oppression
and exploitation, the large scale theft and mismanagement of the public wealth by
those who controlled the economy and state apparatus.5

Colonial police in Nigeria, "therefore acted “ like hostile troops occupying an enemy
country” 6 rather than a force constituted by or for the people for their collective and
individual security. There were two principal areas of dissatisfaction with colonial and
post-colonial Nigeria police forces. These areas are conduct and performance. Firstly, the
public dissatisfaction with police conduct derives from pervasive corruption, incivility,
and insensitivity to the plights of citizens and especially crime victims. Police employed
in the course of crime investigation, arrest, and interrogation is also a source of public
dissatisfaction with the police.
1
See Denton and Rippon, August 2, 1893 at the National Archives, Ibadan, cso/1/1/14
and also cited in Tamuno (1970) op.cit. Page 28 and also in Alemika (1988) op.cit
2
See Alemika (1988) ibid ; Alemika (1993a) op.cit. and F. Odekunle (1979) “The Nigerian
Police Force: a Preliminary Assessment of Functional Performance” International
Journal of Sociology of Law 7 61-83.
3
Examples include the activities of the colonial constabulary police in the pillage of Benin
Kingdom (1897), Opobo nation and the battle for Niger confluence occupied
by various ethnic nationalities such as Abinu (Bunu land), Bassa Nge, Oworo,
Kakanda, Egbura etc) between 1895 and 1900. The ‘victory’ of the British
Force led to the formation and proclamation of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria with Lokoja
s headquaters on January 1, 1900.
4
Such instances include women anti tax riots in the East (1929-1930), in Warri Province
(1927-1928), in Abeokuta (1948) and industrial Labour strikes in Burutu (1945),
Enugu (1949), general strike (1945). Scores of unarmed men and women were “killed or
maimed in these incidents by colonial forces.
5
Alemika (1988) op.cit page 165 and Alemika (1993a) op.cit.
6
Collin Mcinnes (1962) Mr Love and Mr Justice London: New English Library, Page 20.

33
Secondly, the public dissatisfaction, also derive from ineffectiveness of the police in
controlling crime, detecting and apprehending offenders, and protecting the rights of
citizens who come in contact with them as either complainant/victim or suspect/offender.
Thus, since the creation of colonial forces, there have been continuing and widespread
dissatisfaction with police conduct and performance. 1 For example, the Lagos Standard
in its March 6, 1895 edition, reported that the colonial soldiers and constabulary:

Have not secured for themselves… good reputation…They have ceased to keep
the peace, that on the contrary they turned themselves loose upon the people,
filling the role vacated by kidnappers, and rioters... taken the place of marauders
and free-booters. Goods have been seized, from traders: maidens have been
assaulted, youths have been plundered; men have been brow–beaten and women
have been robbed… Travellers of all ages have suffered form their cupidity….2

The militarization of the colonial police forces was dictated by the logic of colonial
oppression and exploitation. Military power and police power were consolidated, thus
colonial police, though called constabulary, or police force, is only that in name, there
was little distinction between them and regular army units. These constabularies were
originally raised, organised and trained as military units. They were also commanded by
officers of the regular army and possessed artillery 3. From these discussions, it is clear
that police –community violence has its historical antecedents in colonialism with its dual
attributes of exploitation and oppression by an alien force for the advancement of
political and economic interests and the suppression of the aspirations and dignity of the
indigenous peoples. According to Adisa:

During the colonial era, the police force was constructed to serve ...alienated
government… Given the circumstance of their ascent to power as foreign
impositions, colonial governments were never quite sure of how the native
population they continue to rule, will react. Thus, they required a repressive
police or military if they were to stay in power against popular sentiments. The
police force in this context was designed to terrorise or pacify the natives into
succumbing to foreign domination and exploitation. 4

The nature of colonial rule in the country did not only produce police-community
violence but also police vigilantism – characterised by “rough, crude and effective justice
which knows little clemency or moderation… to preserve the existing order of things at

1
See Tamuno, (1970) op.cit. pp24-26.
2
Cited in S.C Ukpabi (1987) The Origins of the Nigerian Army (Zaria: Gaskiya
Corporation) pp53-54.
3
ibid p.48
4
Jinmi Adisa (1999) “A New Nigerian Police Image: its Role in the Next Millennium”
Text of a lecture delivered at a seminar organized for Assistant
Inspectors –General and Commissioners of Police by the Nigeria Police Force
at the International Conference Centre Abuja, October 19-20, p.6

34
any price.” 1 Police – community violence, since colonial era, may be attributed (I) to the
legitimisation deficit of colonial and post–colonial governments; (2) to the exploitation
and oppression embedded in the structure of the political entity created as Nigeria
through colonialism (3) to the alienation of successive governments and their agencies
from the mass of the population, and consequently, antagonism to the government which
police are deployed to suppress; and (4) a range of institutional problems relating to
quantitatively and qualitatively inadequate personnel as well as obsolete equipment,
facilities, arms and ammunitions, and poor management and leadership, etc. These
problems persisted beyond colonial rule, until present time.

Police - community violence in post-colonial Nigeria

The struggles for decolonisation and independence were predicated on the belief that self-
governance will bring to an end the phenomenon of oppression and exploitation, and the
socio-political and economic forces and institutions that sustain them.
Adisa, notes that, at independence in 1960:

Many people thought that from being the enemies of the people the police would
become friends of the people as well as the custodians of law and order in society.
Regrettably, this has not turned out to be so. Almost four decades after
independence, the police are yet to change its orientation to a people oriented
police force. Indeed some would argue that the reputation of the colonial police is
far better than that of the police we have today. Part of the problem is that
democracy was never entrenched in the country2"

Authoritarian rule, by both civilian and military governments, since independence was
sustained by state violence using the police, armed forces and other sundry intelligence
and security agencies. The purpose and methods of policing in colonial and post–
colonial Nigeria are similar because, at the fundamental levels, the political and economic
structures of both eras are similar. Police-community violence, although primarily,
determined by the political and economic structures and relations in society, may also be
analysed at the institutional levels.

Our discussion, thus far, has explained police–community violence in Nigeria as a

product of the political and economic structures of colonial and post–colonial Nigeria.
We now need to summarise our arguments concerning the structural causes of police-
community violence in the country as follows: First, the citizens and governments are
alienated from each other, because successive governments since colonial times lacked
legitimacy, due to absence of democracy. Thus authoritarian rule was a feature of
colonial governments as well as post–colonial civilian and military regimes.
Authoritarian rule is a rule of oppression sustained by state violence through the
repressive state apparatus – police, armed forces, and security and intelligence services.

1
Tom Bowden (1978) Beyond the Limits of Law
( Pengium Books).
2
Jinmi Adisa (1999) op.cit p.7

35
Secondly, the economic systems of colonial and post–colonial Nigeria were organised or
designed to create and perpetrate exploitation and poverty of the vast majority of the
population in order to enrich the rulers. This condition leads to unending conflicts
between segments of the exploited and impoverished mass of the population and the
rulers. Such conflicts manifest in several ways including law breaking (criminal
activities), strikes and lockout; riots, demonstrations, industrial sabotage, etc. The rulers
employ the state repressive apparatuses to suppress these reactions to exploitation,
thereby further widening the gulf between the rulers and citizens, and also undermining
the legitimacy of police.

The repressive political structure and exploitative economic relations in colonial and
post-colonial Nigeria gave rise to very high levels of police brutality against women-
organised protests and labour strikes as well as police vigilante actions against
progressive politicians and political parties, academics, media practitioners, students,
labour leaders and unions, pro-democracy and human rights activists, etc.1 The control of
the police and their deployment for repressive purposes are predicated on the need to
sustain exploitation without which economic equity and associated disparities will be
insignificant and unsustainable. For example, Onoge located police-community violence
in the character of colonial political economy:

Through armed police patrols, raids, arrests and detention, the colonial police
protected the colonial economy by policing labour. Through the enforcement of
unpopular direct taxation, the raiding of labour camps, and the violent suppression
of strikes, the police ensured the creation, supply and discipline of the proletarian
labour force required by colonial capitalism. The police enforce the
criminalisation of lucrative indigenous industries like the manufacture of alcohol
and traditional trading patterns across national borders in order to protect the
colonial economy from competition2

Rotimi argued that the colonial police were active in the exploitation of the poor by the
colonial government and native elite. According to him,

The police … were intimately involved in tax raids and the arrest of those who
engaged in unapproved economic activities. It may be remarked that apart from
raising revenue for the government, tax raids were a veritable means of self-
enrichment for those connected with them, the native authorities, the police and

1
See Alemika (1993a) op.cit and E.E.O. Alemika (1998) Recession and Repression in Nigeria( Jos:African
Center for Democratic Governamnce); I.E Sagay (1988) ‘Recent Trends in the Status and Practices of the
Rule of Law in Nigeria” ASUU Monograph series (Ibadan: Academic Staff Union of Universities) and
Civil Liberties Organization Annual Reports on Human Rights (1988-1997) for information on some
instances of state repression of labour, students, academics, professionals, peasants, and artisan
organizations etc, politicians in opposition to government.
2
O.F Onoge (1993) “Social Conflicts and Crime Control in Colonial Nigeria” in T.N Tamuno
et al (eds) Policing Nigeria: Past, present and Future, ( Lagos: Nigerian Police
Force and Malthouse Press Limited) page 178.

36
 other tax officials. As should be expected the masses who suffered as a result of
the activities of the police saw them as their primary enemies (emphasis added) 1.

Police are not just agents for enforcing the law against harmful conducts but also for
protecting the sources of wealth in exploitative economic relations. In doing this police-
community violence ensued2
.
The struggles to hold unto and exercise political power by the political elite are sources
of police-community violence in the country. Whoever, and whichever party, control the
police use them to suppress political opponents, and to deny the citizens of there rights to
free political participation as well as socio-political and economic empowerment. During
the colonial rule, police were deployed by their controllers against uncooperative
traditional rulers and uncompromising anti-colonial activists. The practice continued after
independence.3 For example, it was reported that political parties in power and
government prevent the police from successful prosecution of political thugs who
perpetrate electoral crimes and political violence. Furthermore, policemen were used to
rig elections and to harass political opponents in the Western Region, during the First
Republic (1960 –66), Rotimi reported that: "The local government policemen served
variously as spies, controllers of rally or party meetings permits, agent provocateurs,
terrorists and active party members. "4

In the circumstance, police-community violence became common, because “the activities

of the police drew reactions…. Opposition party leaders enlisted the services of thugs and
bodyguards for their personal protection. Supporters of the opposition parties countered
police harassment with violence on the police….”5. The use of police for political
harassment and violence was not limited to the Western Region of the country. Similar
practices were also recorded in Northern Nigeria... "6

The protracted military rule in the country has intensified structurally determined
violence against the citizen by the police. The military regimes in the country, promoted
a culture of impunity. Under Abacha’s regime, citizens were subjected to unprecedented

1
Kemi Rotimi (1993) “Local Police in Western Nigeria: End of an Era” in T. N Tamuno
et al (eds.) ibid, p.215, but generally see pp 213-218 on the employment of police in economic
regulation and police-public conflicts that ensued.
2
For example in the suppression of strikes, and riots against unpopular economic policies, such as those
witnessed between 1986 and 1989 in the reppression of students and workers opposed to the paralysing
structural adjustment programme introduced by the General Babangida Military regime.
3
K. Tinubu (1969) “The Dilema of Police under Civilian Rule” Nigeria Police Magazine (June –
August)
4
K. Rotimi (1993) op.cit. p.203
5
ibid, and generally pp.203-212 for discussion of violence against citizens by police as well as violence
against police by citizens, consequent upon the political crisis in Western Region (1963 -1966). See also
Working party Report on Police and Prisons (1966) pp. 13-14.
6
See O.Ohonbamu (1972) “The Dilemma of Police Organization under a Federal System:
the Nigerian Example” The Nigerian Law Journal 6: 73-78.

37
level of extra-judicial killings, physical and psychological violence. These occurred
through the following measures and actions:

1. Suspension of the country’s constitutions including the human rights provisions.

2. Promulgation of retroactive criminal legislation with elements of draconian

punishment including death penalty.

3. Proclamation of “shoot at sight order” against suspects, protesters and striking

workers, by rulers.

4. The reluctance of authorities to prosecute police and security officers involved in

violence against citizens.

5. The establishment of special taskforce and tribunals with wide powers.

6. Enactment of Decrees and provisions ousting the jurisdiction of regular superior

courts from reviewing legal and administrative repression by special tribunals,
police and security agencies, and the bureaucracy.

Public violence against police

Thus far, discussion has emphasised the sources and instances of violence by the police
against citizens. The problem is not one-sided. Although, the police using their powers
and facilities, far more inflict violence on citizens, it must be realised that many police
officers are victims of violence by citizens. By this is not only meant violence associated
with police –suspect encounters, but also reprisal violence against police. Very often, the
police are targets of violence by those opposed to the government and see the police as
the expression of the power of government. It has been stated that:

The policeman’s authority consists of a legal license to coerce others to refrain

from using illegitimate coercion. Society licenses him to kill, hurt, confine and
otherwise victimise non-policemen who would illegally hurt, confine or victimise
others whom the policeman is charged to protect. But the reality and the subtle
irony of being a policeman is that, while he may appear to be the supreme
practitioner of coercion, in fact he is first and foremost its most frequent victim…
(Emphasis added).1

Violence against the police may be classified into four groups:

A. Violence associated with police encounters with criminals – as in cases of armed

robbery and drug law enforcement activities.

1
Willaim K, Muir Jr (1977) Police: Street Corner Politicians Chicago: University of Chicago Press, PP 44-
45

38
B. Violence associated with encounter between police and groups opposed to the
government, or with industrial conflicts: This may engender displaced aggression
against police by such groups and unions.

C. Violence associated with police intervention in inter-group (ethnic, religious, etc)

conflicts, Police may be accused of partiality, ironically by both parties, and made
target of violent attack.

D. Violence associated with reprisal against police for their actions under condition
A - C above.

There are records of violence against the police in Nigeria since colonial times. Initially,
police were attacked by individuals and groups who view them as traitors, being servants
of an alien force or repressive traditional rulers. Rotimi, in his historical studies of local
government police force in Western Region, documents several instances of violence
against the police by party thugs and mobs, often as reprisal against the partisan role of
the police in elections between 1960 and 1966.1

According to Rotimi, pubic violence against the police occurred in Western Region
during the first republic, because:

Members or sympathisers of opposition parties against whom the Local

Government Police were set, did not always acquiesce in their ordeal. Those who
could afford it, among the party chieftains, engaged the services of thugs that
countered police violence with occasional assaults on the police. More commonly
there was mob counter-violence.2

In particular, Rotimi reported the burning and destruction of many Local Government
police stations, beating, shooting and killing of policemen after the 1965 Western
Regional elections. In one instance, seven policemen were abducted and killed on their
way from Abeokuta to Iro village on 10 December 1965 to arrest some United
Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA) supporters who were threatening the peace in the
village.3 In the past three decades, hundreds of policemen have been killed in the line of
duty, especially by armed robbers, all over the country. Between 1996 and 1998,
policemen in uniform were targets of violence by armed gangs in Lagos. In late 1999,
armed gangs in Odi of Bayelsa State abducted and killed twelve police officers. This led
to deployment of solders to the community to restore order. The town witnessed
extensive destruction of buildings by the soldiers on punitive mission. In late 1999 and
early 2000, the Odu'a Peoples Congress (OPC) a Yoruba militant organisation attacked
police officers with dangerous weapons and acid, killed and injured several police
officers and burnt Police Stations.4 During the Maitatsine religious violence in Kano, in
1
K. Rotimi (1993) op.cit. pp 211-217.
2
ibid p 211
3
ibid. page 211.
4
The Guardian Tuesday, January 11,2000 reported the abduction and murder of Afolabi
Amao, a Superintendent of Police, and Divisional Police Officer at Bariga
Station by the Odu’a Peoples Congress (OPC) militants. Also a police respondent in

39
December 1980, 5492 citizens were recorded as dead. Also 14 police officers were killed
and 15 police vehicles were burnt. Overall, the police in Nigeria have been victims of
politically and criminally motivated violence. There is need for caution in interpreting
politically inspired violence against the police as reprisals. Sometimes, the violence
against police by political and militant groups represent a symbolic attack on
government. It may also be a reflection of the groups’ frustration with police efforts that
hinder their operations and achievement of their goals. This is a form of displaced
aggression. Police efforts against criminals and illegitimate political activities will
necessarily invoke resentment among criminals and activists respectively. Thus, violence
against the police, though an indication of dissatisfaction with or aggression against,
government and its agencies, such violence should not without adequate investigation, be
regarded as deserved by the police or as a reprisal against illegitimate conduct on their
part.

The discussion in this chapter illustrates two important points. First, the political and
economic structures of Nigeria create conditions for violence between the police and
citizens. Second, efforts on the part of the police to enforce laws and policies enacted by
unpopular governments create violent contacts between them and the citizens. Thus,
police-citizen violence may be aggravated by authoritarian rule and exploitative
economic relations within a society which formally uphold the values of democracy,
human dignity and social justice.

Violence increased in Nigeria in the 1980s and 1990s during military rule.1 Many
attributed this to the malitarisation of society. State violence became pervasive during
Abacha’s regime (1993 – 98). Also, cases of armed robbery increased in several parts of
the country (table 3.1) resulting in the establishment of special police squads, with
various code names to combat the problem. These conditions created the conducive
environment for police-community violence.

A police sergeant in Anambra State, responding to a question on the nature of police–

public relations explained that:

There is a lot of suspicion between the police and the public. The people are
largely ignorant of police work and this ignorance is why there is violence
between the police and the people. Policemen are civil servants and carry out
orders just like other civil servants. The order for instance to quell a riot at a
higher institution is usually given by the government. The people should realise
that policemen do not act alone or on their own and they have a constitutional
duty to protect society from criminals.2

Anambra State reported that in 1999, about 60 to 80 police officers were

Killed by criminals in the state.
1
E.E.O. Alemika (1997) “Criminal Violence and Insecurity in Lagos State, Nigeria”
Africa peace Review, 1 (2): 72-95.
2
A police sergeant in Anambra State, a respondent in this study.

40
 Table 3.1: Cases of Armed Robbery in Lagos State and Nigeria

Year (1) Total cased (2) Total cases (3) Col. (2) as % of
Recorded in Nigeria Recorded in Lagos Col. (1)
1986 1,308 340 26.0
1987 1,260 163 12.9
1988 1,338 140 10.5
1989 1,577 84 5.3
1990 1,700 95 5.6
1991 1,064 68 6.4
1992 1,568 107 6.8
1993 1,975 112 5.8
1994 2,044 272 13.3
1995 2,109 375 17.8
1996 2,419 363 15.0
Total 18,362 2,119 11.5

Source: Nigeria Police Force Lagos State Command (computed from annual crime statistic tables)
Reproduced from E.E.O Alemika (1997) “Criminal Violence in Lagos State, Nigeria” Africa
Peace Review 1 (2): 88

Summary

The political and economic structures of society determine the extent and pattern of
police-community violence. In Nigeria, police violence was embedded at onset in
colonial rule. This is because colonialism is an imperial rule which is “ hostile to the
institutions of popular self government, favouring forms of political tyranny and social
authority which are deadly enemies of effective liberty and equality”.1 Given the
repressive political structure and exploitative economic relations that constitute the
bedrock of Nigerian society, the police who are the defenders of the repressive and
exploitative order could not have gained the consent and support of the people. In the
circumstance, the police employed violence in asserting their authority that is resisted by
citizens who perceive ‘police authority’ as oppressive. Consequently, police-citizen
contacts in the country are characterised by mutual hostility and resentment.2 Police
brutality is often a symptom or consequence of pervasive conflicts between the
government and citizens. The fundamental causes of police-citizen violence are the
conflict of interests that derive from repressive polity and exploitative economy riddled
with injustice, inequity and authoritarianism.

1
W. A. Forster, (1951) Outline Political History of Americas. (New York: International)
2
These expressions of resentment, treatment, hostility are expressed in the headlines of the nations
newspapers for example “uniform thugs versus the rest of us” (African Concord, May 5, 1987), “the big
clash: Lagos mob battles hateful police” ( African Concord, December 1, 1987), “Nigeria : offensive
robbers versus defensive police” (the African Guardian, October 1 1987) “police in crime” (Times
International March 2, 1987); “police: A hard to travel ( the African Guardian January 28, 1988).

41
The political and economic structures of Nigerian gave rise, not only to police violence,
but also a pervasive and entrenched culture of impunity and incessant conflicts between
citizens and security forces. The African Concord (May 5, 1987) reported that in 1986
alone, there were “42 incidents of barbaric and savage infliction of pains on civilians by
uniform men”. According to the weekly newsmagazine, the ways and conducts of
Nigerian security agents:

are hardly different from those of thugs and ruffians – sadistic and violence. Their
victims are often civilians, unarmed men and women. All over the nation, some
uniformed men- in the police, Army, Navy, Airforce, Customs and sundry
uniformed, para-military professions - have been inflicting violence on their fellow
citizens. Their stock in trade is the brutalisation of civilians, often without
provocation.1

The fact is that violence against civilians by personnel of the various security forces in
the country is widespread. Police violence is more noticeable because of the wider scope
of interaction between the citizen and the police. In the light of the pervasive experience
of citizen brutalisation by security forces, meaningful explanation of police violence can
only be discovered in the light of deeper phenomenon of state violence designed and
executed to protect the country’s political economy rather than as a product of police
institutional and personality factors.

It is better to understand police violence in terms of political and economic parameters of

society. As Clark and Sykes have rightly observed:

The sources of coercion (and violence) exercised by the police are as unexplicated
as they are diverse. Historically, much of the impetus for the coercion of others
came from those who had something to gain thereby and who are in
circumstances where their desires could be converted into public policy.
Therefore propertied persons, governmental officials and those with strong moral
convictions were particularly instrumental in arming police with coercive power2.

1
African Concord May 5, 1987, pp 14-15.
2
J.P Clark and R.E. Sykes (1974) “Some Determinants of Police Organization and Practice in
a Modern Industrial Democracy” in D. Glasser (ed)
Handbook of Criminology ( Chicago :Rand McNally) p. 457

42
 CHAPTER FOUR

INSTITUTIONAL CAUSES OF POLICE-COMMUNITY

VIOLENCE

Introduction

Several facets of police organization, management and operations feed on the structural
causes of police-community violence to escalate and intensify the incidence and severity
of violence in the interaction between the police and citizens. Such elements include:

(a). Character of laws in society

(b). Nature, Extent and scope of police-citizen contact
(c). Quality and quantity of police manpower and material resources
(d). Police recruitment, training and orientation
(e) Police discipline in relation to supervision, corruption, and incivility to the public
(f) Police accountability

An analysis of these facets is critical to the understanding of police-community violence

in the country.

Nature, Extent and Scope of Contacts

Police and citizens are in constant daily contacts. These contacts may be voluntary or
involuntary. The nature, extent and scope of contacts influence police-public relations.
According to White et al:

Interacting with citizens constitutes an important part of a police officer's daily

activities. Many aspects of these interactions have the potential for influencing
how the police and citizens perceive and evaluate each other ... Research over the
years has established the fact that contacts between the officers and citizens
influence police-community relations in major ways, often for the worse
...Citizens often bring to the interaction an array of attitudes and preconceived
notions about the police and their conduct... Likewise, the officer brings to the
interaction a similar attitude of presumptions, prejudices, and perceptions of the
citizen. Prior research has established that the officer is sometimes ... prejudiced,
callused by contacts with undesirable and unrepresentative population elements,
and is trained to assert authoritative control in these contacts. In addition, the
police culture abounds with perceptions of the public as uncooperative,
unsupportive, and antagonistic towards the police.1

1
M. F. White, T.C. Cox and J. Basehart (1991), "Theorectical Considerations of Officer Profanity and
Obscenity in Formal Contacts which citizens" in Thomas Barker and David L. Carter (eds.) Police
Deviance (Cincinati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.).

43
Police-citizen contacts are characterized by prejudice and preconceived notions. The
citizens, therefore, tend to resist the police and the latter try to assert their authority.
These are two important factors in police-citizens violence. Antagonism and violence
between the police and citizen tend to be higher in societies where the police concentrate
on law enforcement than in societies where the police blend law enforcement and social
welfare services. Except the police see themselves as "part of the social fabric of a
community, they will be perceived as an alien force, and, unless they are clearly visible in
their roles of helping people in trouble, they will be seen as a mercenary army of
enforcers."1 In Nigeria, the "acute shortage of personnel has reduced the police to crime
fighters [which they do very ineffectively due to qualitative and inadequacy of men,
material and money] to the detriment of the diversification of police functions found in
western societies."2 The provision of social services by the police creates opportunities
for non-coercive contacts between them and citizens. In Nigeria:

Few members of the public see the police as friends, instead the sight of police is
considered synonymous with trouble. This is partly because in the absence of a
social service dimension in police work in Nigeria, the police pre-occupations or
routine police work revolve around stop and question/search, arrest, crime
investigation, detention, prosecution, riot and crowd control, and armed combat
against violent criminals and guarding of the rich and powerful. Consequently,
there are rather too few positive attributes of policing that can be projected.3

This research shows that there is an extensive contact between the citizens and police in
Nigeria. Such contacts occur in the course of police operations in the following areas:

• Crime prevention, especially through stop and search at road blocks

(checkpoints) on highways;
• Crowd and riot control;
• Detection, investigation, apprehension and prosecution of offenders;
• Detention;
• Bail of suspects, pending or prior to arraignment in court;
• Request of assistance by crime victims;
• Request for location of missing persons and recovery of lost properties.4

Table 4.1 shows that 68.8% (432) of the respondents had ever been stopped and searched
by the Nigeria Police Force. The table also indicates that most of such contacts took place
in a vehicle while on a journey. The phenomenon of roadblock or checkpoints
1
A. S. Blumberg (1979) Criminal Justice 2nd ed. (New York: New Viewpoint), p.59.
2
Oluyemi Kayode (1983) "Nigeria" in E.H. Johnson (ed.) International Handbook of Contemporary
Developments in Criminology, Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.
3
E .E.O Alemika (1988), "Policing and Perceptions of Police in Nigeria", Police Studies, p.174
4
E.E.O, Alemika (1999) "Police Community Relations in Nigeria: What Went Wrong?", Paper presented
at the Seminar on Role and Function of the Police in a Post Military Era, Organised by the Centre for Law
Enforcement Education (CLEEN) and the National Human Rights Commission, in Abuja, from March 8-
10.

44
(derogatively called "toll points") as a crime prevention strategies, has been associated
with monumental police corruption and extortion, incivility and violence, sometimes
extra-judicial killings. The government and police authority recognised the negative
aspects of the practice and have at various times ordered its abolition, only for it to be
reintroduced at the request of members of the public, who associated its absence with
increased rates of robbery and insecurity.1 More than three-fifth of such contacts
understandably occurs during the day, when most people travel.

Table 4.1: Contacts with the Police: Stop, Search, Arrest and Detention
Level and Location of Contacts Yes No

3. Ever stopped and searched by the Nigeria police 68.8 (432) 31.2 (196)

4. Location of Stop and Search Contacts

(a) In a vehicle on a journey 66.1 (294) 33.0 (147)
(b) In a vehicle within town 32.1 (142) (67.4 (298)
(c) On a street 18.1 (26) 81.9 (362)
(d) Within residence 5.9 (26) 94.1 (414)
(e) At work or school 6.8 (30) 93.2 (412)

5. Period or time of contact

(a) Day time 61.0 (316) 39.0 (200)
(b) Evening 23.8 (123) 76.2 (394)
(c) Night 21.6 (111) 63.1 (402)

6. Ever arrested by Nigeria Police 33.8 (210) 66.2(412)

7. Number of times ever arrested

(a) Once 49.0(119)
(b) twice 30.0 73 -
(c) thrice or more 21.0 (51) -

8 Offence for which arrested

(a) Traffic 27.1 (64) 71.6 (169)
(b) Theft 18.3 (44) 81.3 (195)
(c) fighting and assault 22.2 (53) 77.4
(d) Strike or protest 13.3 (32) 86.7 (208)

1. Ever lived with a police in same compound 31.3 (197) 67.7 (426)
2. How long respondents lived in the same compound
with police

1
Some cynical Nigerian, however, argue that both the apparent increase in highway robbery and public
demand for road blocks are sponsored by police who wish to retain the "lucrative business" of extorting
bribes from road users and inflicting violence on those who prove obstinate.

45
(a) Less than 2 years 32.3 (70)
(b) 2-5 years 36. (79) -
(c) 5 years and more 31.3 (68) -

9. Ever detained in police cell 28.3 (164) 71.7(415)

10. length of Detention
a) Less than a day 32.8 (65)
b) 1-3 days 44.4 (88) -
c) 4-7 days 12.1 (24) -
d) 1-4 weeks 4.0 (8) -
e) 1-3 months 3.0 (6) -
f) 3 months and above 3.5 (7) -
Percentages are based on respondents who indicated "yes" and "no" and not necessarily with respect to
total respondents

The data for the study also show that about a third (33.8%) of the respondents had ever
been arrested before by the police. Among those arrested, more than half (51%) had been
arrested twice or more. Many of them were arrested for traffic offences (27%); fighting
or assault (22.2%); theft (18.3%) and strike or protest (13.3%). The data also reveal that
less than a third (28.3%) of the respondents had ever been detained for three of fewer
days. These information show that police and citizen contacts, though relatively
significant, have occurred mostly in pursuance of law enforcement objectives by police.
In general, police actions are restrictive and resented by the public, who finds police
intrusion, restriction and surveillance unpleasant. Although police presence contributes to
feeling of security among the citizens, it also "conjure" up images of surveillance,
inconvenience, embarrassment, frustration and indignation,"1 as well as prospects of
police coercion and violence. The restrictive contacts between the police and citizens in
Nigeria, against the background of the country's political and economic structures
discussed in the preceding chapter, contributes to or escalates mutual hostility between
the police and citizens, which occasionally results into violent encounter.

The frequency, content and consequences of contact between the police and citizens are
not randomly distributed. The poor and powerless, according to criminological literature
are disproportionately and discriminately subject to police surveillance and violence.2
Police-citizens contacts have significant impact on police-public relations. For example,
in Nigeria, certain groups in the public (students, the educated, some occupations, e.g.
taxi drivers) have a much more negative view of the police than does the general public,
which having little education and knowledge of their rights and much experience with

1
J.P. Clark (1965) "Isolation of the Police: A Comparison of the British and American Situations", Journal
of Criminology and Police Science, p.56
2
See H. Hahn (1970), "The Public and the Police: A Theorectical Perspective" in H. Haha (ed.), The
Police in Urban Society (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications); E.E.O Alemika (1993.b) "Criminology,
Criminal Justice and the Philosophy of Policing" in T.N. Tamuno: I.L Bashir; E.E.O Alemika and A.O.
Akano (eds.) Policing Nigeria: Past, Present and Future (Lagos:Nigeria Police Force and Malthouse Press
Ltd.) pp. 30-78; and W.J Chambliss (1969), Crime and the Legal Process (New York: Mcgraw Hill) P.86

46
 arbitrary and forceful police behaviour, regards the police with a mix of awe, fear, and
resentment."1 (Emphasis added)

Similarly, a study of perceptions of police in Nigeria, reveal that positive perceptions of

police are inversely related to extent of contact, age and level of education. In effect,
those who have greater contact with police, more educated and older citizens have less
positive attitudes towards the police.2 Table 4.2 did not indicate significant differences in
the degree of contact with the police by citizens from different educational backgrounds.
However, table 4.2 shows that there are significant relationships between education and
arrest and detention by the police. Citizens with primary and lower education reported
having been arrested and detained before by Nigerian Police more than their counterparts
with secondary and post-secondary education.
Table 4.2 Education, Stop / Search, Arrest and Detention
Ever Stopped and Searched Ever Arrested by Police Ever Detained in Police
Education by other? cell?

Yes No Yes No Yes No

None 11 3 9 5 9 5
78.6 21.4 64.3 35.7 64.3 35.7
Non-formal religious 17 4 13 7 11 9
and literacy education 81.0 19.0 65.0 35.0 55.0 45.0
Primary Education 33 9 28 15 23 18
78.6 21.4 65.0 34.9 56.1 43.9
Secondary Education 86 47 61 74 48 85
64.7 35.3 45.2 54.8 36.1 63.9
Post – Secondary 284 127 99 305 73 292
Education 69.1 30.9 24.5 75.5 20.0 80.0
X2=4.96, df=4 P>.29 X2=56.5, df=4 P<.001 X2=47.6; df=4 P<.001

The relationships between occupation and likelihood of being stopped, searched, arrested
and detained by the police were also examined. The data presented in table 4.3, show that
likelihood of stop and search, arrest and detention, vary across occupation. Commercial
drivers and motor park touts reported the highest rate of stop and search, and
arrest/detention by police. This is understandable, because, table 4.1 shows that two-third
of those who reported having ever been stopped and searched, stated that this occurred at
police checkpoints or highways. Farmer and petty traders reported the highest rates of
arrest by the police. They also reported a relatively high level of detention (table 4.3)

1
O. Marenin (1985) "Policing Nigeria: Control and Autonomy in the excercise of Coercion", African
Studies Review, 28(1); 73-93
2
E.E.O Alemika (1988) op.cit.

47
 Table 4.3 Occupation and Stop / Search, Arrest and Detention

Ever stopped and searched Ever arrested by police? Ever detained by police in
Occupation by police? the cell?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Unemployed 60 43 21 81 17 77
58.3 41.7 20.6 79.4 18.1 81.9
Farming and petty 25 18 17 27 17 25
trading 58.1 41.9 38.6 61.4 40.5 59.5
Commercial driver and 58 6 46 18 35 29
park joints 90.6 9.4 21.9 28.1 54.7 45.3
Junior employees 19 24 12 29 8 30
44.2 55.8 29.3 70.7 21.1 78.9
Intermediate employees 35 15 13 34 14 33
70.0 30.0 27.7 72.3 29.8 70.2
Senior employees 92 23 32 84 24 77
80.0 20.0 27.6 72.4 23.8 76.2
Business men 57 22 31 48 26 48
72.2 27.8 39.2 60.8 35.1 64.9
Others, including 78 40 35 81 20 87
students. 66.1 33.9 30.2 69.8 18.7 81.3
X2=41.6; df=7 P<.001 X2=54.6; df=7 P<.001 X2=38.4; df=7 P<.001

The data show that respondents had relatively high level of contacts with the police. The
contacts were in the form of stop and search, arrest and detention. These are forms of
involuntary contacts, which in effect impinge on citizens' freedom and may heighten
police-citizen hostility. An irony of increased police surveillance and proactive
aggressive policing tactics in order to prevent and control crime, is that they tend:

to multiply the occasions on which citizens are likely to be stopped, questioned or

observed. Inevitably, the great majority of the persons stopped will be innocent of any
wrongdoing; inevitably many of these innocent persons believe the police are
harassing…1

The frequent contact between citizens and police who, in the course of their duties, are
uncivil to the public and who sometimes abuse their power to extort money are sources of
violence between the police and citizens. Citizens become defiant if police are uncivil
and corrupt. The police interprete the defiant demeanor of the citizens as a challenge to
their authority, and may sometimes resort to violence in order to assert their authority. A
large number of Nigerian police believe that the citizens do not respect them. A police
officer, responding to a question on police-public relations in Nigeria reported:

I have had the privilege of serving the police both within and outside the country.
When you get outside, you find that the job of a policeman is an enjoyable one.
Enjoyable in the sense that the public respect you and if you are policing within the

1
J.Q Wilson (1975), Thinking About Crime, New York: Basic Books), p.121.

48
 ambit of the law, it is always obeyed. The reverse is the case in Nigeria(emphasis
added)1."

However, the citizens consider the police to be uncivil. According to a respondent:

I have lived with policemen before. I was able to observe that many policemen want
to arrogate power and superiority over others to themselves. They want to be adored
as semi-gods ... these men are meant to be regarded as friends to civilians, but
unfortunately, the reverse is the case. Sometimes, it emanates from pride on the part
of some ill-informed policemen. Some of the policemen constitute terror to members
of the public. They are not friendly, especially when members of the public fail to
meet the whims and caprices of these police officers, monetarily ... they would lord it
over the civilians.2

The analysis of the in-depth interview shows that members of the public attribute police-
public violence to lack of education and enlightenment on the part of the police,
regarding their powers and relationship with the public, and to the influence of long
military rule which account for the arbitrary police powers. Violence against the police
by the public was generally viewed as a reaction to police intimidation and government
repression of people with grievances. According to a respondent:

The violence against the community by the police is part of societal problem
following the long period of military rule. Everybody wants to acquire power and
so also the police. Because of the general dissatisfaction with law enforcement by
the Nigerian police, the communities are reacting violently. The police had all the
power while the military was in power.3

Police-Citizen Contacts and Violence

In discussing the problem of police-citizen violence in the context of police-citizen

contacts, it is necessary to adopt a relevant and broad definitions of violence that capture
the action and effects of unfriendly contacts. Several concepts have been used, sometimes
interchangeably to characterize the mistreatment of citizens by police. The terms include
torture, brutality and violence. The important dimensions of the concepts are often
identified. There are physical and psychological trauma. Barker and Carter employed the
concept of "abuse of authority" to capture the three dimensions of police behaviours that
may produce physical and non-physical harm to the victim (of such behaviours).
According to them:

... abuse of authority ... may be defined as any action by a police officer without
regard to motive, intent, or malice that tends to injure, insult, trespass upon

1
A police Officer respondent, serving in Anambra State
2
A respondent, legal practitioner, from Anambra State
3
A lawyer respondent, resident in Imo State.

49
 dignity, manifest feelings of inferiority and/or violate an inherent legal right of a
member of the police constituency in the course of performing police work.1

According to Barker and Carter, abuse of authority manifests in three ways - physical
abuse, psychological abuse and legal abuse. Physical abuse incorporates police brutality
and police violence and "occurs when a police officer uses more force than is necessary
to effect a lawful arrest or search, and/or the wanton use of any degrees of physical force
against another by a police officer under the color of the officer's authority."2
Psychological abuse :

... includes circumstances wherein a police officer verbally assaults, ridicules,

discriminates, or harasses individuals and/or places a person who is under the
actual or constructive dominion of the officer in a situation where the individual's
esteem or self-image are threatened or diminished, threats by an officer of
physical harm to an individual or the unjustified threat of an arrest are examples
of psychological abuse.3

The third form of abuse identified by Barker and Carter is legal abuse. This form of abuse
is "the violation of a person's constitutional, federally protected, or state-protected right
by a police officer. An improper search, stopping a person without legal grounds... are all
examples of legal abuse."4 Barker and Carter distinguishes abuse of authority from
occupational deviance which includes police corruption and related misconduct. These
concepts and their elaboration are useful for the understanding of police violence.
Similarly, an adoption of a citizen's definition of police brutality and violence, may be
very useful in understanding the wider scope of police-public contacts and relationships:

what citizens mean by police brutality covers the full range of police practices ...
any practice that degrades their status, that restricts their freedom, that annoys or
harasses them, or that uses physical force that is frequently seen as unnecessary
and unwarranted, (emphasis added).5

This perspective is useful because it depicts what the citizens consider appropriate and
inappropriate use of police power that determines their attitude and actions toward the
police. The United States President Commission describes police brutality in terms of
excessive force, name-calling, sarcasm, ridicule, and disrespect.6 A broad description
captures the breadth of public's resentment against the police intrusive activities -violent
and non-violent.

1
T. Barker and D.L. Carter (1991), " A typology of Public Deviance" in T. Barker and D.L. Carter (eds.)
Police Deviance ( Cincinati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.), p.7. (emphasis added).
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid. Pp7-8
4
Ibid. P8
5
D. L. Carter (1984) "Theoretical Dimensions in the Abuse of Authority by Public Officers", Police
Studies 7(4): 25
6
Quoted in D.L. Carter (1984), ibid.

50
 In Nigeria, public perception of police brutality and violence, which influence their
uncooperative and un-supportive attitude towards police is broad, encompassing both
physical and verbal assault, harassment and restraints from exercise of their constitutional
rights. In particular, police roles in industrial disputes resulting in workers strike, student
demonstrations, public procession and demonstrations against unpopular government
policies, frequently involve violence, harassment and intimidation, arrest and detention.
Public perception of police violence seems to be synonymous with police oppression.

Table 4.4 contains the experience and observation of police brutality by the respondents.
More than two-fifths of the respondents reported ever been abused (insulted) by police.
Between 10% and 20% have ever been injured (10.6%), beaten (14.8%), kicked (13.5%)
and slapped (20.o%) by police. More significant, the data in table 4.4 revealed that 22.5%
had experienced police pointing gun at them, while 21.3% of the respondents reported
that police had threatened to shoot them in the past. The data show that police brutality is
widespread in the country. Furthermore, police in Nigeria frequently threaten citizens
with gun. This occurs frequently at checkpoints, where police menacingly display their
gun to threaten road users. Under the military government, the issuance of " shoot at
sight" order against crime suspects as well as demonstrators give the police the wrong
impression that firearms and violence are to be used as tools of routine police work.

Table 4.4 Experience and Observation of Police Brutality

Nature of Behaviour Yes No
1. Respondents’ experience:
a. Ever abused by Nigeria police 41.4 (230) 58.6 (326)
b. Ever slapped 20.0 (101) 80.0 (404)
c. Ever kicked 13.5 (72) 86.5 (460)
d. Ever beaten 14.8 (79) 85.2 (455)
e. Ever injured by police 10.6 (56) 89.4 (472)
f. Police ever pointed gun at you 22.5 (121) 77.5 (416)
g. Police ever threatened to shoot you 21.3 (114) 78.7 (421)
2. Respondent ever observe or witness:
a. police abusing a citizen or suspect 79.5 (458) 20.5 (118)
b. police slapping a citizen or suspect 72.1 (411) 27.9 (159)
c. police kicking a citizen or suspect 69.0 (394) 31.0 (177)
d. police beating a citizen or suspect 73.2 (424) 26.8 (155)
e. police inflicting injury on a citizen or 51.9 (287) 48.1 (266)
suspect 36.7 (206)
f. police pointing a gun at a citizen or 63.3 (356)
suspect 72.5 (380)
g. police shooting a citizen or suspect 27.5 (144)
h. police receiving bribe 82.5 (494) 17.5 (105)
3. Ever observed police helping a citizen 59.1 (328) 40.9 (227)

Table 4.4 also shows that respondents observed the police engaging in diverse acts of
brutality against other citizens or suspects - insulting (79.5%); slapping (72.1%); kicking
(69.0%) beating (73.2%); inflicting injury (51.9%), pointing a gun (63.3%), shooting
(27.5%), receiving a bribe (82.5%). The high rates of observed police violent acts against
the citizens or suspects partly account for the hostile public attitudes toward the police.

51
Unfortunately, the situation breeds a vicious circle of mutual police-public hostility and
violence.
The non-random distribution of police violence against citizens in the population has
been attributed to various factors, including variation in contacts, criminality, arrest, and
weapon possession by different groups in society. It has also been attributed to police
prejudice and discriminatory law enforcement practices in relations to groups that are
marginal to or marginalised from political and economic power. Thus lower class persons
are said to be more likely to be victims of police violence because they commit more
crimes- and especially violent crimes, and also because of police prejudice and harsh law
enforcement practices in relations to them. Power-relations play important role in police
violence. The police are more likely to assault individuals they consider to be poor and
powerless or someone in opposition to the ruling government.

These is also, a psychological proposition that : there are violence – prone individuals
who precipitate police violence on themselves: According to Hans Toch: "The violence-
prone person invites violence-prone interacts with other people. These interactions follow
a pattern, in that they arise under repeatedly occurring circumstances, and in that they
serve equivalent ends."1

This idea or attempt to extend the concept of victim-precipitated homicide introduced

into criminology vocabulary by Professor Marvin Wolfgang in 1958, in his study on
criminal homicide in Philadelphia .2 In the work, Wolfgang argued, that in significant
number of cases, homicide victims, were the first to threaten or use violence against their
partners, but ended up being victims. Extending this logic, many victims of police
violence precipitated their victimization because of their reactions to the police during an
encounter. According to Professor Hans Toch:

….two types of orientation are especially likely to produce violence: one of these
is that of the person who sees other people as tools designed to serve his needs;
the second is that of the individual who feels vulnerable to manipulation. These
two perspectives, when we examine them more closely become faces of the same
coin; both rest on the premise that human relationships are power-centered, one
way affair, both involve efforts at self-assertion with a desperate feverish quality
that suggest self-doubt.3 Although this perspective on violence, and especially
violence by police against citizens may easily degenerate into a victim-blaming
explanation, it nonetheless, points to the significance of power and mutual
assertion in the pathway to violence by and against police.

Experience of police brutalisation vary among people with different levels of education
and occupations. Table 4.5 shows that people without formal education reported being
beaten than their counterparts with primary and higher education. Respondents with
lower education also reported high observation of police violent act against citizens (table
4.5). There is no statistically significant difference in the reported experience of

1
Hans Tochh (1969) Violent Men (chicago: Aldine), p.255
2
M. E. Wolfgang (1958) Patterns of Ciminal Homicide (Philadelphia: University of pennsylvania
3
Han Toch (1969) op cit. P.183

52
 respondents with different levels of education with respect to having ever been
threatened with gun by police, which usually occur by police menacingly pointing gun at
approaching vehicles at checkpoints.

Table 4.5 Education and police brutalisation

Ever witnessed police

Ever kicked and beaten by Ever threatened with gun insulting, beating and
police? by police? kicking citizens?
Education
Yes No Yes No Yes No
None 6 7 4 9 10 3
46.2 53.8 30.8 69.2 76.9 23.1
None-formal religious 6 13 5 14 12 9
literacy education 31.6 68.4 26.3 73.7 57.1 42.9
Primary education 5 35 9 32 25 17
12.5 87.5 22.0 78.0 59.5 40.5
Secondary education 21 95 24 92 73 59
18.1 81.9 20.7 79.3 55.3 44.7
Post- secondary 33 304 70 270 165 232
education 9.8 90.2 20.6 79.4 41.6 58.4
X2= 23.3; df=4; P<.001 X21.1;df=4 P>.89 X2=16.5; df=4 P<.01

The data in table 4.6 shows that individuals in certain occupations reported higher
experience and observation of police violence. Automobile drivers, Motor Park touts and
businessmen reported having ever been beaten, kicked and threatened with gun than
respondents in other occupations. Intermediate and senior employees of public and
private organisations also reported a relatively high level of threats with gun by the
police. The higher incidence of police brutality reported by commercial drivers is linked
to widespread location of checkpoints on the nation’s highways, where many police
officers extort money from the drivers. Police brutality, in that context, constitutes a tool
of extortion.

Table 4.6 Occupation, and Police Brutalisation

Ever beaten or kicked by Ever threatened with gun Ever witnessed police
police? by police? insulting and beating
citizens?
Occupation
Yes No Yes No Yes No

unemployed 12 77 12 75 56 45
13.5 86.5 13.8 86.2 55.4 44.6
Farming and petty trading 5 34 6 33 22 20
12.8 87.2 15.4 84.6 52.4 47.6
Commercial driver and 21 37 19 41 39 23
park joints 36.2 63.8 31.7 68.3 62.9 37.1
Junior employees 3 37 3 36 16 26

53
 7.5 92.5 7.7 92.3 38.1 61.9
Intermediate employees 3 38 12 31 21 27
7.3 92.7 27.9 72.1 43.8 56.2
Senior employees 7 78 18 69 49 62
8.2 91.8 20.7 79.3 44.1 55.9
Businessmen 12 56 23 46 31 47
17.6 82.4 33.3 66.7 39.7 60.3
Other, including students. 8 94 17 83 47 69
7.8 92.2 17.0 83.0 40.5 59.5
X2=33.8; df=7 P<.01 X2=20.3; df = 7 P<.01 X2=15.2; df=7 P<.05

The practice of police slapping, kicking and beating suspects, constitutes violence against
citizens. So also, pointing guns at citizens or threatening to shoot citizens with gun by
police, though practically constitute a threatened violence can be described as brutality or
torture. These acts also constitute degrading treatment, which is prohibited by the
Constitution. The Constitution provides that: "every individual is entitled to respect for
the dignity of his person, and accordingly - (a) no person shall be subjected to torture or
to inhuman or degrading treatment." 1 There have been judicial pronouncements on this
constitutional provision. Of specific relevance to the present analysis is the position of
Justice Nasir, former president of the Court of Appeal. According to him:

The phrase inhuman treatment means in my opinion, any barbarous or cruel act or
action without feeling for the suffering of others. Thus it was held by Adefarasin C.J.
in Alhaja A. Magaji and ORS. V. Board of Customs and Excise (1983) 2 MCLR 552
at 460 that the actions of the officials of the Board of Customs and Excise aided by
police officers and soldiers to descend on market women with guns and horse whips
and to seize goods arbitrarily in an atmosphere of gun shots and horse whipping is out
of step with the law and offends section 31[1][a] of the Constitution as being inhuman
and degrading treatment.2

The Nigerian police frequently resort to vigilantism - the ruthless execution of instant
justice to suspects and individuals considered by the police to be defiant towards their
authority. It must be emphasized, however, that in view of the prolonged military rule
and associated practices of arbitrary exercise of powers and official impunity, militarism
and authoritarian temperament and quick resort to violence became widespread among
groups in the country. Thus among uniformed personnel, the resort to violence in any
dispute with citizens or in the course of law enforcement became heightened and
prevalent. Thus in dealing with suspects of armed robbery, the police resort to summary
executions. As Professor Adeyemi observed:

1
Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Similar Provisions were in
section 31 of the 1979 Constitution.
2
Cited in S.G. Ehindero (1998), The Nigeria Police and Human Rights, (Jos: Ehindero Press Ltd), p.64; S.
31[1] [a] cited was the provision against inhuman and degrading treatment in the 1979 Constitution.

54
 ... there is no gainsaying the fact that the practice of wasting robbers amounts to
extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, which have been unanimously
condemned by all countries, including Nigeria. Perhaps, the practice has so far
escaped serious legal consequences for the Force and the personnel involved,
principally because of the military dictatorship that Nigeria had experienced in the
immediate past fifteen years, and the fact that many suspects and their relatives
appeared not to be fully aware of their rights within the context of criminal justice
administration.1

Table 4.7 reveals that 81%, 73.2% ; 77.5% of the inmate respondents, respectively
reported having ever been beaten by police, threatened with weapons ad tortured in police
cells. Further, 39.7%, 33.3% and 50.8%, respectively reported being burnt with hot
objects, shocked with electric current and pricked with needle or sharp objects. The latter
practices constitute torture and are frequently used by police in the course of
interrogation and to obtain confession from suspects.2
Table 4.7: Inmates treatment by Nigeria police
Treatment Yes No.
Abused or insulted when arrest 80.3 (155) 19.7 (38)
Beaten or slapped 81.0 (158) 19.0 (37)
Threatened with weapons 73.2 (142) 26.8 (52)
Tortured in police cell 77.5 (148) 22.5 (43)
Denied water and food in the police cell 56.3 (71) 43.2 (54)
Denied contacts with relations and lawyer 56.8 (76) 43.7 (55)
Burnt with hot objects 39.7 (48) 60.3 (73)
Shocked with electric current 33.3 (40) 66.7 (80)
Pricked with needle or sharp 50.8 (62) 49.2 (60)

In earlier study by the Nigerian Institute of Advance Legal Studies, 48.7 % of suspects
reported being insulted by the police ; 35.9% reported being rough-handled or slapped
and 3.0% reported being threatened by gun. Overall, 69.4 % of the respondents felt that
they were unfairly treated by police. For example 57.4 % of the suspects reported being
handcuffed at the time of arrest while police officers admitted that suspects rarely resist
arrest.3 The Nigerian law provides that:

A person arrested shall not be handcuffed, otherwise bound or subjected to

unnecessary restraints except by order of the court, a magistrate or Justice of the
1
A.A. Adeyemi (1999) " Police and Human Rights in a Democratic Nigeria: Challenges for the Twenty-
first Century", paper presented at the seminar titled Towards a More Effective Nigeria Police Force,
Organised by the Nigeria Police Force for Officers of the rank of Assistant Inspector-General and
Commssioners of Police, held at the International Conference Centre, Abuja, 19-20 October, pp.10-11.
2
Ibid.; see also M.A. Ajomo and I.E. Okagbue (1991) Human Rights and Administration of Criminal
Justice (Lagos: Nigerian Institute of Advance Legal Studies), and Ibidapo-Obe, "Police Brutality:
Dimensions and Control in Nigeria", in Chukwuma Innocent and Akin Ibidapo-Obe (eds.), Law
Enforcement and Human Rights in Nigeria, (Lagos: Civil Liberties Organisation).
3
Ajomo and Okagbue, Ibid, pp. 121-122

55
 Peace or unless there is a reasonable apprehension of violence of an attempt to
escape or unless the restraint is considered necessary for the safety of the person
arrested.1

The data obtained for the study shows that only 4.5 % of the respondents claimed that
they ever resisted arrest by police while 5.2 % and 3.4 % reported throwing stones at
police and beating/slapping police respectively, (table 4.9). The reported high incidence
of police maltreatment cannot be justified based on the principles of legality, necessity
and proportionality that guide police use of restraint and force on suspects. The scale of
police violence reported by inmate respondents in this study is higher than those reported
by respondents in the study by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, conducted by late
1980s. This pattern suggests escalation of police violence over the long period of military
rule.
Table 4.8: Inmates observation of police behaviour

Observed or witnessed police Behaviour yes No.

Police abusing or insulting a citizen 89.0 (153) 11.0 (19)
Police slapping a citizen 94.4 (167) 5.6 (10)
Police Kicking a citizen 92.6 (162) 7.4 (13)
Police beating a citizen 94.3 (164) 5.7 (10)
Police injuring a citizen 90.1 (155) 9.9 (17)
Police threatening a citizen with firearms 86.5 (148) 13.5 (23)
Police shooting a suspect 74.6 (126) 25.4 (43)
Police receiving bribe 89.5 (153) 10.5 (18)
Police helping a citizen 51.8 (85) 48.2 (79)

Table 4.8 contains the responses of prison inmates to questions on their observation of
several police behaviours. They reported observing a very high level of police
maltreatment of citizens, in the following ways: slapping (94.4%), kicking (92.6%);
beating (94.3%), injuring (90.1%), shooting a suspect (74.6%) and receiving a bribe
(89.5%). These appears rather high, however, responses pertain to lifetime observation,
and because these are offenders in constant contacts with the police, the reported police
behaviour may not in all cases be unlawful.

Table 4.9: Inmate behaviour towards the police

Behaviour Yes No
Ever abused or insulted a police 8.5 (16) 89.4 (168)
Ever beaten or slapped a police 3.4 (6) 95.5 (170)
Ever obstructed a police from 4.5 (8) 95.5 (171)
effecting an arrest
Ever threw stone at a police 5.2 (9) 94.8 (164)
Ever refused to assist a police 7.5 (13) 92.0 (160)
Ever resisted arrest by a police 4.5 (4) 94.3 (83)

1
Section 4 of the Procedure Act (applicable in the Southern States), see similar provision in Section 37 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (applicable in the Northern States).

56
 The data obtained for this study and analysed in the preceding sections indicate a high
level of practices that may he variously called police violence or brutality, police torture
of suspects and generally abuse of authority and violation of citizens' rights by police.
However, these figures of reflecting police misconduct should be interpreted with caution
and in relation to the response of citizens regarding their own maltreatment of police and
insubordination towards them. Literature, across the world shows that police usually deal
harshly with those who defy their authority. Table 4.10 shows that 11.5% and 16.6% of
the respondents from the general public sample admitted that they had, respectively
obstructed police from effecting arrest and insulted a police officer.

Table 4.10: Respondents behaviour towards Nigeria police

Respondent behaviour Yes No

Ever slapped a police officer 3.2 (18) 96.1 (548)
Ever obstructed police from effecting arrest 11.5 (65) 88.5 (502)
Ever abused (insulted) a police officer 16.6 (98) 83.4 (492)
Ever threw stones at a police officer on duty 6.1 (33) 93.9 (508)
Ever refused to assist a police officer on duty 10.2 (58) 89.8 (509)
Ever resisted arrest by a police officer 6.4 (14) 93.6 (206)
Ever beaten a police officer 3.2 (18) 96.8 (552)

Table 4.10 indicates significant incidence of the public insulting and obstructing police in
the course of their duties – and these are precipitating circumstances for police brutality
to assert their authority.

Table 4.11 shows the responses of police officers concerning conditions under which
they are likely to beat or shoot suspects. The data shows that majority (56.3%) of officers
will beat a suspect who attempted to run, about a third (34.7%) will beat a suspect who
resisted arrest and nearly a third (32.0%) will beat a suspect who assaulted (beat, slap,
kick) him. These are legally permissible provided the police response is proportional, and
the arrest is legal.

Table 4.11 Police response to suspects’ behaviour

Conditions Yes No
1. Should police beat a suspect, if
a. Abused by suspect 1.4 (2) 98.6 (145)
b. Beaten, slapped or kicked by suspect 32.0 (47) 68.0 (100)
c. A suspect insists a warrant of arrest 7.4 (11) 92.6 (137)
d. A suspect is disrespectful 8.9 (13) 91.1 (133)
e. A suspect resists arrest 34.7 (50) 65.3 (94)
f. A suspect attempts to run 56.3 (81) 43.8 (63)
g. A suspect argues with police 8.3 (12) 91.7 (133)

II Should police shoot a suspect IF 98.0 (146)

a. A suspect insist on warrant of arrest 2.0 (3) 47.7 (71)
b. A suspect attempts to run 52.3 (78) 16.7 (25)

57
c. A suspect is armed with weapon 83.3 (125) 97.2 (140)
d. A suspects beats or slaps police 2.8 (4)

The police officers' response to the question on condition under which they will shoot a
suspect is also revealing. More than one-half (52.3%) of the respondents said they would
shoot a suspect that attempts to run, and more than four-fifth (83.3%) would shoot a
suspect that is armed with weapon. The two conditions are also legally permissible,
however, subject to certain criteria of legality, proportionality and necessity.

The common law ‘felony rule justifies the killing of a fleeing felon, in order to effect his
arrest - that is offender suspected to have committed an offence that statutorily amount to
a felony (usually punished by a two years jail term or more, under Nigeria’s criminal
code definition). But Lawrence Sherman argued that the rule is now an anachronism in
the light of development of weaponry, communication facilities and inter-agency
cooperation available to modern police to effect the arrest or present escape of an
offender.1 The justification for killing in all-felony cases has been discredited and
abandoned in R. v McKay [1957] (V.R. 560, 11 Halsbury’s Law of Enland, S. 1179) s. in
which it was stated that:

The circumstances in which it can be considered reasonable to kill another in the

prevention of crime must be of an extreme kind... only in the case of an attack
against person which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury and where
killing the attacker is the only practicable means of preventing the harm. It cannot
be reasonable to kill another merely to prevent a crime, which is directed only
against property.

In Nigeria, extra judicial killings without justification are rampant. In 1981, peasant
farmers in Bakolori, Sokoto State embarked on protest against the seizure of their
farmlands by the government, for a state irrigation project, without payment of due
compensation, in contravention of the nation’s (1979) constitution. The police were
deployed to repress the protests and at the end, more than one hundred farmers were
killed. Summary execution of protesting students has become routine since 1971 when
Kunle Adepeju was killed by police at the nation’s premier university, - university of
Ibadan; when drafted there to quell students protest against the school authority. Students
have been killed at various universities at different times between 1971 and 1999.2
Similarly, extra-judicial killing at various checkpoints on highways became frequent
since when a Nigerian athlete Dele Udoh, resident in America was shot and killed at a
checkpoint in Lagos. Beside, there is fear that some police are being hired as assassins.
Wherever police extra-judicially kills a Nigeria citizen, he is declared as an armed
robbery suspect. It is feared that many innocent Nigerians may have been killed and

1
Lawrence W. Sherman (1982) “ Executions without Trial: Police Homicide and the constitution” in James
J. Fyfe (ed.) Readings on Police Use of Deadly Force. Police Foundation.
2
See Alemika (1988) op cit; Alemika (1993a) op cit; Civil Liberties Organisation Annual Report on
Human Rights in Nigeria 1988 – 97 series,

58
 labeled armed robbery suspects in order to justify police action. Police has executed
hundreds of Nigerian citizens without trial1

Table 4.12, however, presents self-report behaviour of police officers. While police
officers claimed they do not very often abuse, beat or slap citizens, more than two-fifths
reported that they sometimes abuse, beat or slap members of the public.

Table 4.12: Police Self-Report behaviour towards public

Frequency

Behaviour
Very often Often Sometimes Never
Abused citizens 0.6 (1) 2.5 (4) 40.3 (64) 56.6 (90)
Beat or slap suspects 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 42.9 (67) 56.4 (88)
Threaten suspects with 0.0 (0) 1.3 (2) 18.1 (28) 80.6 (125)
gun

The analysis of police-citizen contacts and violence suggests that the citizens and police
need to be enlightened on the rule of law, police role and powers, and human rights, in
order to reduce both legally sanctioned and illegal use of force by the police.

Citizen Violence against Police

The police are often victims of violence by citizens, in different ways and for different
reasons. In some cases, the police are killed or injured as a result of their intervention to
stop criminal activities or apprehend offenders. They can also be targets of violence by
citizens in different situations, such as strikes, and protests or riots. These instances of
violence are inherent in police work characterised by danger. But there are other
instances that depict public hostility towards the police as in violence associated with
resistance, with reprisals or prejudice by the public. Tables 4.9 and 4.10 show that
members of public also abuse and obstruct police in the course of their duties.

Table 4.10 shows that 11.5% of the respondents have ever insulted police and 11.5%
obstructed police, 6.1% threw stones at the police. More than one-fifth (23.7%) of police
respondents claimed that they have ever been beaten by suspects, 53.8% observed many

1
Centre for Law Enforcement Education and National Human Rights Commission, Policing a Democracy
(1999) chapter 3, civil Liberties Organisation (1991) “ murder, then Howl Robber” Liberty 2 (1) pp 4-6
Alemika (1993)a op cit and Courtroom legal Newsmagazine “ Police Executions” and “Executions without
Trial” (April issue) pp 10-15, and Clement Nwakwo, Dulue Mbachu and Basil Ugochukwu (1993) Human
Rights Practices in the Nigerian Police (Lagos: Constitutional Rights Project) pp 22-65 for details of such
killing

59
 of their colleagues beaten by suspects, and as high as 68.4% reported witnessing their
fellow officers shot by suspects (table 4.13). These experiences, as literature has shown,
create the impression that the public is dangerous and hostile to police.

Table: 4.13: Experience of police with suspects

Experience / witness / Observation Yes No

(1) Ever beaten by a suspect 23.7 (37) 76.3 (119)

(2) Colleagues observed beaten by

suspects
Very many 15.8 25
Many 38.0 60
Few 36.1 57
None 10.1 16

(3) Colleagues observed shot by 20.9 33

suspects 47.5 75
Very many 23.4 37
Many 7.6 12
Few
None

In the light of the reported experiences of being beaten, slapped and shot by suspects, it is
not surprising that most police officers believe that the rates of crime and robbery in
particular, are increasing. More than four-fifths of the police respondents believe that
people are becoming more criminal and violent. Also, 67.5% believe that the public is
becoming more hostile to the police.

Table 4. 14: Police perception of crime rates and police attitudes

Issues % N
1. Rate of robbery:
• Increasing 79.5 124
• Decreasing 20.5 32

2. Incidence of crime
• Increasing 80.4 127
• Decreasing 19.6 31

3. People are becoming

60
• Less criminal 19.6 31
• More criminal 80.4 125

4. Criminals are becoming

• Less criminal 12.7 20
• More criminal 87.3 138

5. Members of the public are

becoming
• more hostile to police
• less hostile to police 67.5 104
32.5 50

These responses confirm what have been generally referred to in the literature as police
working personality, which makes the policeman:

... regards the public as enemy, feels his occupation to be in conflict with the
community and regards himself to be a pariah. The experience and the feeling
give rise to a collective emphasis on secrecy, an attempt to coerce respect from
the public and a belief that almost any means are legitimate in completing an
arrest.

The perception of the police concerning public attitudes toward them appears to be
justified by the public's poor evaluation of the police in terms of their crime control
effectiveness.

Table 4.15: Level of Education and perception of police effectiveness

Level of Education Are police effective
in controlling
crime?

Effective Ineffective Total

None / below 15 20 35
primary 42.9 57.1 100.0
Primary education 14 27 41
34.1 65.9 100.0
Secondary 39 81 130
education 37.7 62.3 100.0
Post-secondary 98 313 411
education 23.8 76.2 100.0

61
Table 4.15 shows that the respondents irrespective of levels of education rated the police
rather poorly. Similarly, table 4.16 shows that majority of respondents from various
occupations rated police very poorly in terms of their effectiveness in controlling crimes
in the country.

Table 4.16: Occupation and perception of police crime control effectiveness

Police effectiveness
Occupation

Effective Ineffective
Unemployed 38 66
36.5 63.5
Farming and petty trading 16 27
37.2 62.8
Commercial employees and park 21 40
joints 34.4 65.6
Junior employees 9 33
21.4 78.6
Intermediate employees 14 35
28.6 71.4
Senior employees 29 87
25.0 75.0
businessmen 20 59
25.3 74.7
Other, including student 27 91
22.9 77.1

Police violence: reprisal killing

There are records of Nigerian police practice of reprisal killing. Such practice existed
during colonial era when police and the military embark on punitive expeditions, when
either their members or colonial officers were maltreated by a community. Detachments
of police and army were sent to destroy or burn such communities. A notable example
was the attack on Benin Kingdom in 1897.

Such practice has also been recorded in recent history. On 27th December 1988, a
contingent of police went to Irri, a town in then Bendel State and killed and maimed
residents, looted their property as reprisal for alleged murder of police detectives in the
town. Similar reprisal killings have been executed by police in Umuechem in Rivers State
on November 1, 1990.; Ovwiam in Delta state on December 6, 1993, Patani in Delta
State on February 15, 1994, Odi in Bayelsa where 12 police officers were abducted and
killed in December 1999, and in Oshodi, Mushin and Ipaja areas of Lagos Metropolis as

62
counter-terrorism to the activities of a faction of Odua Peoples Congress (OPC) in late
1999 and early 2000. Criminal violence or terrorist acts against police are indefensible
but police should bring culprits to book through due process. Reprisal killings persist
because such incidences are condoned by government.

Police Effectiveness and police-public relations

The poor evaluation of the police, by the public, in terms of crime control effectiveness,
calls for analysis of some institutional factors that impinge on police effectiveness.
Several researches have pointed out the public dissatisfaction with the conduct, integrity
and effectiveness of Nigerian police.1 This dissatisfaction is frequently expressed in the
form of hostility towards the police. Consequently, police-community mistrust and
violence ensue. However, police ineffectiveness is partly due to inadequate social
(especially transportation and telecommunication) infrastructure in society and within the
police as well as poor funding of police, inadequate facilities for police work, poor
resource management, bad leadership, poor information management, poor attitude and
orientation, within the Nigeria Police Force.2 In essence, the ineffectiveness of Nigeria
Police Force is due to factors within and beyond the force. A few of the factors are:

1. Political and Economic Environment:

The political and economic environment in Nigeria alienates citizens from the
government and creates hostility ( rather than cooperation) towards government
agencies, especially the police, which is the most visible expression of state power.
According to a police respondents in an in-depth interview:

People regard police as enemies ... If there is a robbery operation going on

somewhere, for instance, the public will applaud perpetrators instead of helping
police to apprehend them.

Proactive and preventive measures adopted by the police are resisted by citizens, due to
their uncooperative disposition towards law enforcement and as a result of uncivil
attitude and poor information management by police. These affect police effectiveness.

2. Authoritarian government and repressive laws. The police in Nigeria, due to absence
of democratic government and dominance of oppressive government, are required to
enforce unpopular and repressive laws. This distracts them from enforcing the laws

1
W.A. Westley (1958) Violence and Public, American Journal of Sociology, p35.
2
F. Odekunle (1979) "The Nigerian Police Force: A preliminary Assessment of Functional Performance",
International Journal of Sociology of Law (7) 61-83; C.O. Okonkwo (1966) The Police and the Public in
Nigeria; (London: Sweet and Maxwell); T.N. Tamuno, (1970), The Police in Modern Nigeria (Ibadan:
Ibadan University Press); Etannibi E.O. Alemika (1997), "Police and Crime Control in Nigeria", Nigerian
Journal of Policy and Strategy 12(1&2): 71-98; O.Kayode (1976), Public Expectations and Police Role
Concepts in Nigeria", Police Chief (May) 56-59 and E.E.O Alemika (1995) "The Nigerian Police:
Functions, Powers and Performance" Lawyers Bi-annual 2(1); 150-172, also published with minor
revisions in the Nigerian Journal of Public Law (1997), vol. 1, pp. 120- 141.

63
 that benefit and protect the vast majority of the citizens and thereby deny police of
public support required for effective performance.

3. Inadequate and obsolete facilities. The Nigeria Police Force is deficit in men (and
women), materials and money. As regards human resources, the Force lacks adequate
and well-qualified personnel for its duties. The facilities available to police, ranging
from transportation, telecommunication, office and residential accommodation,
ammunition, stationery, furniture to uniform are inadequate or unserviceable or
obsolete. These hinder police effectiveness.

4. Recruitment, training, promotion, discipline and remuneration of officers affect their

orientation, attitude and performance. The Nigeria Police Force, does not currently
employ scientific and sound management principles to these areas. Consequently, the
force is saturated with poorly screened, tested, trained and remunerated officers, who
lack motivation in police work.1

In analyzing police effectiveness, therefore, these and other constraints must be given due
recognition.

Summary

This chapter considers the scope of police-citizen contacts in Nigeria, and how such
contacts engender violence between police and citizens in Nigeria. The analysis shows
that there is an extensive contact between the police and citizens in the country. But the
contacts occur predominantly within the context of law enforcement, characterized by
mutual hostility and prejudice, as well as police corruption and incivility, and public
disrespect and resent police authority. These constitute sources of police-community
violence in Nigeria.

However, the nature, scope and context of police-citizen contact and violence have
deeper structural determinants. The country's authoritarian governments since colonial
rule enact repressive laws for the police to enforce, thereby alienate them from the
citizens. The inability of the government to develop and properly manage the economy
for the benefit of the citizens created widespread poverty, and the gap between the rich
and the poor progressively widens. These generate propensity to crime. Those in power
continue to "loot the treasury" and the poor resort to diverse forms of theft and burglary,
and violent reactions against government economic policies, such as the structural
adjustment programme of the General Ibrahim Babangida regime and the privatisation
and commercialisation of public enterprises by successive government since the middle
of 1980s. The impoverished citizens see these as transfer of public or common-wealth
1
See E.E.O. Alemika (1997), ibid, Kayode (1976) ibid, B.O Osoba (1994) "Relevance of Logistics in the
Enforcement of Law and Order" Paper Presented at the Joint workshop of the National Orientation Agency
and the Nigerian Police Force on Police and Social Justice at the Police Staff College, Jos, on Ist
December, and A.J. Ojomo and E.E.O Alemika (1993) "Information Management and Policing in Nigeria"
in T.N. Tamuno, I.L. Bashir, E.E.O Alemika and A.O Akano (eds.) Policing Nigeria (Lagos: Nigeria Police
Force and Malthouse Press Ltd.)

64
into private hands, and actions, which are capable of aggravating their misery and
widening socio-economic inequalities in the country. Thus, police-citizen violence is
caused by structural and institutional factors. The Nigeria Police force in under-staffed,
under-funded, under-equipped and under-remunerated. Nigerian police, therefore, fails to
exhibit the proper conduct and level of performance expected of them by citizens. Public
estimation of, respect for and cooperation with police are undermined. Relationships
between the Nigeria police and citizens are largely characterized by suspicion, prejudice,
mutual disrespect, conflict and violence.

65
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This study examines the structural and institutional sources of violence between the
police and citizens in Nigeria. At the structural level, the authoritarian political structure
and the exploitative economic system based on rent, and characterised by large scale
corruption created a wide gulf between the citizens and rulers. Citizens are alienated
from government and its agencies, and therefore, governance is maintained by repression.
The enforcement of unpopular and repressive laws by incivil and corrupt police engender
police-citizen conflicts. Similarly, several economic policies of government aggravate
misery in society. The police is used to suppress opposition of citizens to such policies.
For example, popular reactions to and demonstration against structural adjustment
programme from 1986 to 1990, led to the killing of several citizens by police.1 Similarly,
in May 1989, students and unemployed people youths in several Nigerian cities
embarked on demonstration against alleged information that the then military president,
General Ibrahim Babangida was looting the national treasury and lodging huge sums of
money in foreign banks. Government deployed soldiers and police to quell the riots. In
Lagos alone, more than fifty people were reportedly killed by the soldiers and police, and
many were killed in their apartments by the invading and looting force. These illustrate
the point that the root causes of police violence in Nigeria are structures of political
repression and economic exploitation, and the determination to sustain the system by the
political and economic power-holders against the struggle of the oppressed and exploited
vast majority of citizens to overthrow or reform or revolutionise the system.

Police-citizens violence is also attributable to institutional factors, to a large extent

determined by the structural factors outlined above. The scope of contact between the
police and citizens in the country is limited to law enforcement situations, which are
often restrictive and resented by the citizens. Thus, mutual hostility and sometimes
violent confrontation result from such contacts. Nigeria police are required to enforce
unpopular and repressive laws. They are inevitably brought into conflict and violent
encounters with the citizens. Even when their actions is not backed by law, the existence
of a repressive regime Forsters police impunity. Due to a combination of repressive laws
and culture of impunity, grossly inadequate manpower, materials and money, the police
are either insensitive to the plight of citizens or resort to vigilantism in dealing with
suspects or communities.

Police vigilantism, according to Bowden:

can occur either where the police perceive an absence of effective law or where a
regime encourages such action, or chooses to ignore it, in order to maintain the
status quo, preserve an autocratic regime or rapidly cauterize an internal political
1
See E.E.O Alemika (1993), "Colonialism, State and Policing in Nigeria", Crime. Law and Social Change,
20: 187-219.

66
 crisis ... The end product is ... a rough, crude and effective justice which knows
little clemency or moderation. While police vigilantism can take many forms and
occur in a variety of circumstances, it is most often associated with crisis politics
and the wish to preserve the existing order of things at any price.1

There is a relationship between autocratic or despotic rule and police vigilantism, the sort
of policing witnessed in Nigeria. It "seeks to preserve existing property relations, uphold
conservative political, economic, social and moral values, administer retributive justice
and preserve "laws and order."2 Thus militarized policing and police vigilantism in the
nation symbolized a trend that has been implanted in the social structure to make it
insular to change towards democracy, economic development and equity and educational
and technological advancement. 3

Police-community violence is facilitated in the country by the frustration of citizens and

police arising from inadequate transportation and telecommunication facilities that
militate against effective and timely communication by distressed citizens with police
and prompt response of the latter to citizen's call for assistance. This inadequacy portray
the police as ineffective and the citizen as unreasonable, thereby hardening mutual
prejudice and hostility between the police and citizens, which under certain conditions
erupt into violence. Majority of the citizens lack adequate knowledge of the role and
powers of police. Therefore any action of the police, even within law and which should
elicit cooperation, is resented. In such situation, the police may enforce the law, using
measures that would normally have been unnecessary.

Individual police attributes also impact on police violence. Nigerian policemen and
women are inadequately screened and tested before recruitment, poorly trained- before,
during and throughout their career. These inadequacies, coupled with poor supervision
and leadership, weak disciplinary control, poor remuneration and working environment,
produce orientation and attitudes that are inappropriate to policing in a civilized and
democratic society. In the light of the analysis of police-community violence and the
findings of this study, as well as insight derived from the literature, the following
recommendations are put forward as framework for the restructuring and reform of
Nigeria Police Force in order to make it more effective, efficient, civil, accountable and
citizen-friendly.

RECOMMENDATION
1
T. Bowden (1978), Beyond the Limits of the Law (Hammondsworth: Pengium Books) p.35
2
Ibid. P.97
3
E.E.O Alemika (1999) "Police-Community Relations in Nigeria: What Went Wrong?" Paper Presented at
the Seminar on Role and Function of the Police in a Post Military Era organized by the Centre for law
Enforcement Education (CLEEN) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), at Abuja, March
8-10.

67
Concretely, the following measures should be introduced and sustained:

A. Structural Reforms

The country must restructure its political and economic structure towards democratising
the polity, and promoting economic efficiency and competitiveness with due
consideration for and guarantee of social equity and welfare, especially in the provision
of health, education and housing for the needy.

1. Democratization of Nigerian polity and economy should be accelerated. This is the

only way to have an effective, efficient, civil and polite, accountable, well equipped
and adequately remunerated and motivated police in the country.

2. The economy should be restructured to provide the basic needs of citizens on

local/national self-reliance basis. The development of effective services like
education, health, transportation, telecommunication, and energy (electricity) should
receive priority attention in national development policies and the services should be
made available to citizens at affordable costs.

3. Corruption, which is an important motivation for political repression and a major

cause of economic and social backwardness in the country should be tackled through
effective legal provisions that are fairly and promptly enforced. This will reduce the
high level of corruption in the top hierarchy of government and private institutions.
The existence of corruption at these levels encourage corruption at other levels,
especially by law enforcement agents. Effective anti-corruption programme in the
country will also promote effective and efficient allocation and management of
resources for national development and provision of social services.

B. Institutional Reforms
The following conditions within the police force should be given due attention with a
view to reducing the institutional sources of police-community violence.

1. The scope of contacts between the police and citizens should be enlarged to include
social services delivery by police in order to create favourable environment for public
cooperation with police, in their law enforcement duties.

2. Members of the public should be educated on the role and powers of police, and the
significance of public cooperation with police in order to promote an overall
individual, community and national security.

3. Policemen and women should be thoroughly screened and tested during their initial
training to ensure that they possess good character, and are emotionally stable before
they are finally enlisted.

68
4. The government should provide opportunities for training in academic and
professional disciplines by police officials. Many officers, on their own embarked on
self-sponsored education at post-secondary levels, and instead of being rewarded,
they are indirectly punished, for example by failing to promptly retraining and
upgrade them in accordance with their qualifications. Officers who engage in self-
education or self-sponsorship in order to acquire higher educational and professional
qualifications should be regraded to appropriate rank within twelve months.

5. Workshops, seminars, lectures for the reorientation of police officers should be

organised at state and divisional command levels, to enable them acquire proper
orientation for policing a free and democratic society. The curriculum of police
colleges should be enlarged to adequately deal with human rights education,
international codes and ethics for law enforcement officers, etc.

6. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the police, the Nigeria Police Force should be
well funded and equipped. This will boost the morale of the officers, enhance their
performance, and promote positive evaluation of police by citizens.

7. The Nigeria police force should change its law enforcement practices and style that
emphasis reactive policing. Instead, proactive preventive policing strategies such as
beat (foot). patrol, problem-oriented policing, involving police-community
partnership should be emphasised.

8. Refresher courses should be provided for all levels of the police with a view to
sharpening the professional skill of officers and to enable them understand the
changes and dynamics in the country’s political, social and economic spheres. The
courses should also aim at ensuring that police are properly oriented to promote good
relationships with the public, and protect human rights and rule of law in the country.

9. Nigeria police should pay attention to effective information management – collation,

analysis, publication, storage and dissemination of relevant criminal, social and
economic information. At present the quality of criminal and law enforcement
statistics generated and produced by the police is grossly unsatisfactory in terms of
scope or coverage and accuracy of data, level of analysis, format of presentation and
publication. Worse still, the Nigerian police are reluctant to collaborate with
technically qualified criminologists to design appropriate and reliable criminal and
law enforcement information management system. The police are also reluctant to
disseminate criminal and law enforcement statistics to researchers mass media
practitioners, civil society organisations and citizens in general. This practice denies
the police of public understanding of their responsibilities and constraints. The police
authority should establish a panel comprising of police and civilian specialists to
design appropriate criminal and law enforcement information management system for
the country.

10. There is need for an explicit guidelines that conform to international conventions and
principles on Law Enforcement, to guide the behavior of police officers and their

69
 relationships with the public. The present force order governing the use of firearms
requires changes to make conditions for the use of firearms more restrictive. In
addition, police should procure more non-lethal but effective weapons, such as water
canons, rubber bullet, etc. for crime and crowd control. The use of baton rather than
personal arms should be reintroduced as routine tools of law enforcement for the beat
officer.

11. The police authority should enhance the quality and quantity of telecommunication
facilities available to officers. Telephone and radio communication facilities should
be installed in all police stations and barracks. In addition, every active police men an
women should be provided with an effective and reliable walkie-talkie for
communication with police stations and patrol vehicles within his divisional
command to ensure better police response to crime and needs of victims.

C. Legislative Initiative

Several legislative initiatives are needed to promote police effectiveness, civility and
accountability, and reduce police violence and brutality. Some of such initiatives are
presented below:

1. The Police Act, including Police Regulations should be reviewed to bring it

conformity with international conventions and principles, and the Nation’s
constitutional provisions on human rights, law enforcement, criminal justice
administration and treatment of offenders.

2. The National Assembly should enact a law to create Police Boards at the Village,
Divisional, State and National levels. The composition should include elected
representatives of community based organisations, workers, students, professional
associations (especially medical, legal, academic), trade associations (especially
commercial vehicle drivers) religious and community leaders, retired police
officers and a serving police officer within the command. The Board should have
a civilian chairman. The functions of the Board should include:
A To promote effective police services
B To promote respect for human rights and rule of law by police
C To promote police accountability to the citizens
D. To promote and mobilise public support for the police.
E. To organise public enlightenment programmes for police and
citizens on police powers and functions and citizens’ concerns for
public security personal safety and human rights.
F. To promote measures to reduce conflicts and violence between
police and citizens.
G. To identify and promote measure to reduce crime and insecurity in
society and to assist police efforts towards crime prevention and
control, and law enforcement in communities.

70
 H. To promote partnership, communication, and cooperation between
the community and police in problem identification and problem –
solving.
I. To receive, investigate and make recommendations on complaints
against police men and women, and police departments. The report
shall be transmitted:

i from community (village / town) Police Board to divisional

Police Board.

ii from Divisional Police Board to State Police Board, and

iii from state Police Board to National Police Board.

The Police Boards should operate as an independent organisation. It shall, however, be an

a department of the office of the Minister of Police Affairs, who shall establish a state
liaison office to coordinate the activities of the Board within each State of the Federation.

3. The National Assembly should enact a law for the establishment of legal
Assistance fund, into which an annual subvention shall be made by the Federal
government. Victims of police and executive oppression should be able to draw
on the fund for civil litigation.

E. Civil Society Initiatives

The civil society organisations need to create programmes, activities and measures that
will enhance partnership and cooperation between the public and police. Additionally, the
organisations should empower citizens to ensure police accountability and effective
police services. The civil society institutions can promote these through the mobilisation
of the public in support of police legitimate efforts as well as the mobilisation of citizens
against abuse of authority/power, brutality and violence, insensitivity incivility and
ineffectiveness by police. Civil society institutions should maintain a strong monitoring,
research, training and advocacy capacity on police work in the country.

Conclusion

The desirability of decentralizing Nigeria Police has been debated, some people want
each state to establish its own Police Force. But only 29.6% (186) of the respondents
from the public supported the establishment of state police forces, while 18.9% supported
the establishment of local government police forces. The respondents argued that there
will be too many police forces that would be used for repression and fraudulent electoral
practices if state and local governments establish their police forces. The need for
decentralisation will involve two elements- accountability and police strategies. The
police will be more accountable to the public, if the police emphasises community and
problem-orientated policing strategies and if more power is devolved to local, divisional
and state commanders to adopt with their communities appropriate strategies for securing

71
personal safety, public security and social order. Such strategies must not erode the rule
of law or violate the fundamental rights of the citizens, group and communities, and
especially minorities.

The problem of police corruption, incivility insensitivity, brutality and violence in the
country deserve serious attention. In particular, police execution and extra-judicial
killings of suspects, and innocent citizens should be discouraged by promptly, fairly and
firmly disciplining erring officers. The problem of police execution is serious. For
example, the Punch newspaper of November 9, 1989 quoted a police bulletin released in
Maiduguri, reporting the killing of 69 robbery suspects in Borno State within four months
(May-August 1989). Such incidences are widely reported in the country’s mass media
and corpses of suspects summarily executed by police are frequently shown on the
nation’s television stations, sadly as evidence of police successful efforts against crime
and criminals. These police practices are incompatible with democracy, human rights
and rule of law, and must be stopped through legislative, judicial and organisational
measures.

Another problem deserving serious attention is police-public hostility in Nigeria.

Respondents in this study attribute the problem to improper orientation on the part of the
police and, recommended the enlightenment and re-orientation of the police. A
respondent observed that:

The police have failed the public as seen in many instances. One often hears the
police describe themselves as friends of the people but several times they betray
the confidence reposed in them by revealing secret information on the activities of
criminals in society…. Most of the times they carry out arrests and detention
based on personal relationships and sentiments. Bail for instance is supposed to be
free but people are made to pay to bail their relations. What happens now in that
policemen handpick individuals and lock them up... Another problem between the
police and the public is the issue of bribery… Extortion has become a way of life
for policemen and the excuse is that their pay is poor.

The hostile relations between the police and the public are precipitated by police
inefficiency, insensitivity, brutality and violence, corruption, and grossly inadequate
facilities. Members of the public appreciate some of the constraints on police that militate
against their efficiency and precipitate police corruption and brutality. A respondent
noted that: "The police use very unreasonable force in their dealing with members of the
public. Suspects are handled as if they are convicts. A suspect should not be beaten but
the police normally beat suspects."
Members of the public are sympathetic to the plight of the Nigerian police. Many
respondents to our in-depth interview acknowledge that Nigeria police are poorly trained,
under-remunerated; ill equipped and poorly motivated. According to a respondent:

The police in Nigeria are handicapped… They are ill equipped, the salary is poor,
and they are poorly trained… It is so bad that contacting the police is almost an
impossible task. When they are finally contacted, it is either that they do not have

72
 a vehicle or there is no driver to drive it or that there is no fuel… The policemen
should be properly equipped to combat the rising crime wave. The policemen us
still using the old obsolete riffle while the armed robbers use powerful automatic
sub-machine guns. The police cannot succeed without cordial relationship with
the public, but their relations with the public is hostile and oppressive.

The problems with Nigeria police deserve structural and institutional reforms, legislative
initiatives as well as monitoring, research, and training and advocacy and mobilisation
activities by civil society, in order to introduce and implement necessary changes within
the police system and in the relationship and partnership between the citizens and the
police. These are necessary if Nigeria is to have effective, civil, incorruptible and
accountable police.

73
 APPENDICE I

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS

Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, resolution 34/169 of 17

December 1979.

Article 1

Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfil the duty imposed upon them by law, by
serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal acts, consistent with
the high degree of responsibility required by their profession.

Article 2

In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect
human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons.

Article 3

Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent
required for the performance of their duty.

Article 4

Matters of a confidential nature in the possession of law enforcement officials shall be

kept confidential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice strictly require
otherwise.

Article 5

No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement
official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a
threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public
emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.

Article 6

Law enforcement officials shall ensure the full protection of the health of persons in their
custody and, in particular, shall take immediate action to secure medical attention
whenever required.

Article 7

74
Law enforcement officials shall not commit any act of corruption. They shall also
rigorously oppose and combat all such acts.

Article 8

Law enforcement officials shall respect the law and the present Code. They shall also, to
the best of their capability, prevent and rigorously oppose any violations of them. Law
enforcement officials who have reason to believe that a violation of the present Code has
occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to their superior authorities and,
where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or
remedial power.

75
 APPENDICE II

BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE USE OF FORCE AND FIREARMS BY

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

General Provisions

1. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and
regulations on the use of force and firearms against person by law enforcement
officials. In developing such rules and regulations, Governments and law
enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force
and firearms constantly under review.

2. Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as

broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of
weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and
firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating
weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining
the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the
same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be
equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bulletproof
vests and bulletproof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use
weapons of any kind.

3. The development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be

carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved
person, and the use of such should be carefully controlled.

4. Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible,
apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They
may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any
promise of achieving the intended result.

5. Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement
officials shall:

a) Exercise restrain in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the
offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;

b) Minimise damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;

c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected
persons at the earliest possible moment;

76
 d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are
notified at the earliest possible moment.

6. Where injury or death is caused by the use of force and firearms by law
enforcement officials, they shall report the incident promptly to their superiors, in
accordance with principle 22.

7. Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by
law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

8. Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public

emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic
principles.

Special provisions

9. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self
defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious
injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave
threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their
authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are
insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of
firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

10. In the circumstances provided for under principle 9, law enforcement officials
shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use
firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so
would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of
death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or
pointless in the circumstance of the incident.

11. Rules and regulations on the use of firearms by law enforcement officials should
include guidelines that:
a) Specify the circumstances under which law enforcement officials are
authorised to carry firearms and prescribe the types of firearms and
ammunition permitted;
b) Ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a
matter likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm;

c) Prohibit the use of those firearms and ammunition that cause unwarranted
injury or present an unwarranted risk;

d) Regulate the control, storage and issuing of firearms, including procedures for
ensuring that law enforcement officials are accountable for the firearms an
ammunition issued to them;

77
 e) Provide for warnings to be given, if appropriate, when firearms are to be
discharged;

f) Provide for a system of reporting whenever law enforcement officials use

firearms in the performance of their duty.

Policing Unlawful Assemblies

12. As everyone is allowed to participate in lawful and peaceful assemblies in

accordance with the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Governments
and law enforcement agencies and officials shall recognise that force and firearms
may be used only in accordance with principles 13 and 14.

13. In the dispersal of assemblies that are unlawful but non-violent, law enforcement
officials shall avoid the use of force or, where that is not practicable, shall restrict
such force to the minimum extent necessary.

14. In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms
only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum
extent necessary. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms in such cases,
except under the conditions stipulated in principle 9.

Policing Persons in Custody or Detention

15. Law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or detention,
shall not use force, except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security
and order within the institution, or when personal safety is threatened.

16. Law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or detention,
shall not use firearms, except in self-defence or in the defence of others against
the immediate threat of death or serious injury, or when strictly necessary to
prevent the escape of a person in custody or detention, presenting the danger
referred to in principles 9.

17. The preceding principles are without prejudice to the rights, duties and
responsibilities of prison officials, as set out in the Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners, particularly rules 33, 34 and 54

Qualifications, Training and Counseling

78
18. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that all law enforcement
officials are selected by proper screening procedures, have appropriate moral,
psychological and physical qualities for the effective exercise of their functions
and receive continuous and thorough professional training. Their continued fitness
to perform these functions should be subject to periodic review.

19. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that all law enforcement
officials are provided with training and are tested in accordance with appropriate
proficiency standards in the use of force. Those law enforcement officials who are
required to carry firearms should be authorised to do so only upon completion of
special training in their use.

20. In the training of law enforcement officials, Governments and law enforcement
agencies shall give special attention to issues of police ethics and human rights,
especially in the investigative process, to alternatives to the use of force and
firearms, including the peaceful settlement of conflicts, the understanding of
crowd behaviour, and the methods of persuasion, negotiation and mediation, as
well as to technical means, with a view to limiting the use of force and firearms.
Law enforcement agencies should review their training programmes and
operational procedures in the light of particular incidents.

21. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall make stress counselling
available to law enforcement officials who are involved in situations where force
and firearms are used.

Reporting and Review Procedures

22. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall establish effective reporting and
review procedures for all incidents referred to in principles 6 and 11 (f). For
incidents reported pursuant to these principles, Governments and law enforcement
agencies shall ensure that an effective review process is available and that
independent administrative or prosecutorial authorities are in a position to
exercise jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances. In cases of death and serious
injury or other grave consequences, a detailed report shall be sent promptly to the
competent authorities responsible for administrative review and judicial control.

23. Persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives
shall have access to an independent process, including a judicial process. In the
event of the death of such persons, this provision shall apply to their dependants
accordingly.

24. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that superior officers are
held responsible if they know, or should have known, that law enforcement
officials under their command are resorting, or have resorted, to the unlawful use
of force and firearms, and they did not take all measures in their power to prevent,
suppress or report such use.

79
25. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that no criminal or
disciplinary sanction is imposed on law enforcement officials who, in compliance
with the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and these basic
principles, refuse to carry out an order to use force and firearms, or who report
such use by other officials.

26. Obedience to superior orders shall be no defence if law enforcement officials

knew that an order to use force and firearms resulting in the death or serious
injury of a person was manifestly unlawful and has a reasonable opportunity to
refuse to follow it. In any case, responsibility also rests on the superiors who gave
the unlawful orders.

80
 APPENDICE III

QUESTIONNAIRE (for the public)

INTRODUCTION

The Centre for Law Enforcement Education in Nigeria in collaboration with the National
Human Rights Commission is conducting a national survey on the Root Causes of Police-
Community Violence in Nigeria. You are requested to please assist by providing honest
answers to the following questions. Whatever answer you give will not be released to any
individual or authority. The final report will not contain information about any individual
respondents. Please tick the responses that best apply to you. Thank you for your co-
operation

SECTION A
1. Age
1) 15 – 24 years
2) 25 – 34 years
3) 35 – 49 years
4) 50 years and older

2. Sex
1) Male
2) Female

3. Highest level of Education

1) None
2) Non – formal religious literacy class or adult education
3) primary school
4) secondary / technical / teacher’s college
5) post-secondary (Polytechnic, college of Education, University)

4. Occupation
1) Unemployed
2) Farming, petty trading, self-employed or artisan
3) Driver, motor park assistants, drivers' union officials, etc.
4) Junior staff of government agencies and companies
5) Intermediate staff of government agencies and companies
6) Senior staff of government agencies and companies
7) Businessmen and self employed professionals
8) Other (specify)………………………………………..

5. What is your average monthly income?

1) Less than N1,000 per month

81
 2) N1,000 – N2,999
3) N3,000 – N4999
4) N5,000 – 9,999
5) N10,000 – N14,999
6) N15,000 – N24,999
7) N25,000 - N49,999
8) N50,000 and higher

6. How long have you lived in town

1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 – 5 years
3) 6 – 10 years
4) 11- 19 years
5) 20 years and more

SECTION B

7. Have you ever lived with a police in the same compound?

1) Yes 2) No

8. If yes for how long

1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 –5 years
3) 5 years and more

9. Have you ever been stopped and searched by the police?

1) Yes 2) No

10. If yes to question 9, where did it happen?

1) In a vehicle on a journey
2) In a vehicle within the town
3) On a street
4) Within your compound
5) At work or school
6) Other places (specify)………………………………………..

11. If yes to question 9, what time of day did it happen?

1) Day time
2) Evening
3) Night

12. Have you ever been arrested by police in Nigeria?

1) Yes 2) No

82
13. If Yes, how many times?
1) Once
2) Twice
3) Three and more

14. For what offence were you detained

1) Traffic
2) Offences relating to loss or theft of property or money
3) Offences relating to fighting, injuring someone
4) Demonstration or protests, strike
5) Other (specify)……………………………………………..

15. Have you ever been detained in cell by police in Nigeria

1) Yes 2) No

16. If Yes, for how long?

1) Less than 1 day
2) 1 – 3 days
3) 4 – 7 days
4) 1 – 4 weeks
5) 1 – 3 months
6) 3 – 12 months
7) 1 year and longer

17. Have you ever personally been subjected to the following actions in Nigeria?
1) Abused by police 1) Yes 2) No
2) Slapped by Police 1) Yes 2) No
3) Kicked by Police 1) Yes 2) No
4) Beaten by Police 1) Yes 2) No
5) Injured by Police 1) Yes 2) No
6) Police pointed gun at you 1) Yes 2) No
7) Police Threatened to shoot you 1) Yes 2) No

18. Have you ever witnessed any of the following action by the police in Nigeria?
1) Police abusing a person 1) Yes 2) No
2) Police slapping a person 1) Yes 2) No
3) Police kicking a person 1) Yes 2) No
4) Police beating a person 1) Yes 2) No
5) Police injuring a person 1) Yes 2) No
6) Police pointing a gun at a person 1) Yes 2) No
7) Police shooting a person 1) Yes 2) No
8) Police helping a person 1) Yes 2) No
9) Police receiving bribe from people 1) Yes 2) No

83
19. Do you agree that the police in Nigeria abuse, beat and kick members of the
public only when provoked or challenged by members of the public?
1) Yes 2) No

20. How much do you think the police in Nigeria respect members of the police?
1) Very much
2) Much
3) Little
4) Very little

21. Have you ever:-

1) Abused a police officer? 1) Yes 2) No
2) Beat or slapped a police office? 1) Yes 2) No
3) Obstruct police from arresting someone? 1) Yes 2) No
4) Threw stones at police officer1) Yes 2) No
5) Refuse to assist a police officer on duty? 1) Yes 2) No
5) Resist arrest by police?

21. Which of the following is the most important reason why police in Nigeria beat,
injure or kill members of the public.
1) The government supports the police for engaging in the act
2) The government orders the police to engage in the act
3) There are too many criminals in the country
4) The people are afraid of police
5) The police are not respected by the police
6) The police are frustrated
7) The police are corrupt
8) Other (specify)…………………………………….

23. What is your suggestion for improving the relationship between the police and
the public?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………

24. How effective are the Nigeria police in controlling crimes?

1) Very effective
2) Effective
3) Ineffective
4) Very ineffective

25. Do you support the idea that State Governments should establish their own
police force?
1) Yes 2) No

84
26. Do you support the idea that Local Governments should establish their own
police force?
1) Yes 2) No

27. If yes to questions 24 and 25, which of the following is the most important reason
for your answer?
1) Will reduce crime
2) Will make police respect members of the public
3) Will make police men and women more comfortable
4) Will reduce police corruption and brutality
5) Other (specify)………………………………………

28. If no to question 24 and 25, which of the following is the most important reason
for your answer?
1) Too many police forces will lead to confusion and conflict.
2) It will not reduce crime
3) It will be used by politicians in power at state and local levels to oppress
opponents
4) State and Local Governments do not have enough money to properly run police
force.
5) It will make police more corrupt and violent
6) They will be used to rig elections
7) Other (specify)………………………………………………………….

85
 QUESTIONNAIRE (for the Police)

INTRODUCTION

The Centre for Law Enforcement Education in Nigeria in collaboration with the National
Human Rights Commission is conducting a survey on the Root Causes of Police
Community Violence in Nigeria. You are requested to please assist by providing honest
answers to the following questions. Whatever answer you give will not be released to any
individual or authority. The final report will not contain information about any individual
respondents. Please tick the responses that best apply to you. Thank you for your co-
operation

SECTION A
8. Age
5) 15 – 24 years
6) 25 – 34 years
7) 35 – 49 years
8) 50 years and older

9. Sex
3) Male
4) Female

10. Highest level of Education

6) None
7) Non – formal religious literacy class or adult education
8) primary school
9) secondary / technical / teacher’s college
10) post-secondary (Polytechnic, college of Education, University)

11. Rank
9) Constable
10) Corporal / sergeant
11) Inspector
12) ASP/DSP
13) Assistance Commissioner and

12. Length of service in Police

9) Less than 2 years
10) 2 – 5 years
11) 6 – 10 years
12) 11 – 20 years
13) 20 years and more

86
13. How many years have you spent in the following sections of the police force
1) General duty…………………………………………….years
2) Intelligence and investigation…………………………..years
3) Protection……………………………………………….years
4) Mobile police……………………………………………years
5) Highway (Patrol/Road Block)……………………….….years
6) General administration………………………………….years
7) Training (as a staff)……………………………………..years
8) Training colleges (as a student / participant)……………years

14. How many years have you spent in service in the town?
1) Town……………………………..years
2) Village/rural areas……………….years

15. Do you think that the rate of robbery has been increasing or decreasing in
recent years?
6) Increasing 2) Decreasing

16. Do you think that crime has been increasing or decreasing in recent years?
1) Increasing 2) Decreasing

17. Do you think that people are becoming more or less criminal in recent years?
1) Less criminal 2) More criminal

18. Do you think that criminals are becoming less or more violent?
1) Less violent 2) More violent

22. Are members of the public becoming more or less hostile to the police?
2) More hostile to the police 2) Less hostile to the police

23. How often have you experienced the following from the public
4) Abuse or insult
1) Very often 2) Often 3) Sometime 4) Never
5) Physical attack / violence
1) Very often 2) Often 3) Sometime 4) Never

24. How often have you experienced the following from suspects?
1) Abuse or insult
1) Very often 2) Often 3) Sometime 4) Never
2) Gun or firearm attack
1) Very often 2) Often 3) Sometime 4) Never

25. Have frequently do you abuse members of the public while on duty?
1) Very frequently 2) Frequently 3) Rarely 4) Never

87
26. How frequently do you beat or slap suspects?
1) Very frequently 2) Frequently 3) Rarely 4) Never

27. How frequently do you threaten suspects with gun?

1) Very frequently 2) Frequently 3) Rarely 4) Never

28. Have you ever shot a suspect? 1) Yes 2) No

29. If yes, state the circumstances………………………………………………………

30. Have you ever shot and killed a suspect? 1) Yes 2) No

31. If yes, state the circumstances………………………………………………………

22. Should police beat a suspect under the following conditions?

1) When abused by 1) Yes 2) No
2) When beaten, slapped or kicked by suspect 1) Yes 2) No
3) When a suspect insist on warrant of arrest 1) Yes 2) No
4) When a suspect is disrespectful to police 1) Yes 2) No
5) When a suspect resist arrest 1) Yes 2) No
6) When people demonstrate against government
1) Yes 2) No
7) When suspects attempt to run 1) Yes 2) No
9) When a suspect continue to argue with the police
1) Yes 2) No

23. Should a policeman shoot a suspect under the following conditions?

1) When abused by a suspect 1) Yes 2) No
2) When a suspect insist on warrant of arrest 1) Yes 2) No
3) When a suspect attempts to run / flee 1) Yes 2) No
4) When a suspect is armed with weapons 1) Yes 2) No
5) When a police is beaten or slapped by suspect1) Yes 2) No
6) When people are demonstrating against government 1)Yes 2) No

24. Have you ever been beaten by suspects? 1) Yes 2) No

25. How many of your colleagues have ever been beaten by suspects?
1) Very many
2) Many
3) Few
4) None

88
26. How many of your colleagues have ever been shot by suspects?
5) Very many
6) Many
7) Few
8) None

27. What measures do you suggest for reducing violence against suspects and
members of the public by the police?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

28. What measures do you suggest for reducing violence against police by members
of the public.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………

29. How serious is the problem of violence between police and the public in the
country?
1) Very serious
2) Serious
3) Not serious

30 Which of the following do you consider to be the most serious problem

confronting Nigeria police
1) The government does not allow police to perform well
2) The police authorities do not provide good leadership
3) Lack of fund
4) Inadequate equipment and facilities
5) Poor condition of service
6) Lack of sophisticated guns/weapons
7) Lack of public respect and co-operation
8) Police corruption and brutality

30. Suggest on important measure for promoting police performance in the country
………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….

89
 QUESTIONNAIRE (Prison Inmates)

INTRODUCTION

The Centre for Law Enforcement Education in Nigeria in collaboration with the National
Human Rights Commission is conducting a national on the Root Causes of Police-
community Violence in Nigeria. You are requested to please assist by providing honest
answers to the following questions. Whatever answer you give will not be released to any
individual or authority. The final report will not contain information about any individual
respondents. Please tick the responses that best apply to you. Thank you for your co-
operation

SECTION A
19. Age
9) 15 – 24 years
10) 25 – 34 years
11) 35 – 49 years
12) 50 years and older

20. Sex
5) Male
6) Female

21. Highest level of Education

11) None
12) Non – formal religious literacy class or adult education
13) primary school
14) secondary / technical / teacher’s college
15) post-secondary (Polytechnic, college of Education, University)

22. Occupation
14) Unemployed
15) Farming, petty trading, self-employed or artisan
16) Driver, motor park assistants, driver union officials, etc.
17) Junior staff of government agencies and companies
18) Intermediate staff of government agencies and companies
19) Senior staff of government agencies and companies
20) Businessmen and self employed professionals
21) Other (specify)……………………………………………..

23. What was your average monthly income?

14) Less than N1,000 per month
15) N1,000 – N2,999
16) N3,000 – N4999

90
 17) N5,000 – 9,999
18) N10,000 – N14,999
19) N15,000 – N24,999
20) N25,000 - N49,999
21) N50,000 and higher

24. How long have you lived in towns

7) Less than 2 years
8) 2 – 5 years
9) 6 – 10 years
10) 11- 19 years
11) 20 years and more

SECTION B

25. For what offence are you currently detained

2) Property – theft, robbery, embezzlement, drugs etc,.
3) Violence – assault, wounding, manslaughter, etc.
4) Public order – demonstration
5) Other (specify)……………………………………………………………

8. How long were you in police custody?

4) Less than a day
5) 1 – 3 days
6) 4 – 7 days
7) 1 – 4 weeks
8) 1 – 3 months
9) More than three months

11. How long have you been in prison custody?

1) Less than 1 month
2) 1 – 3 months
3) 4 – 12 months
4) 1 – 2 years
5) 3 – 4 years
6) more than three years

12. How many times have you been arrested for different offences by the police
before your present arrest by the police?
1) Once
2) Twice
3) Three and more

91
11. How many times have you been convicted by a court?
4) Never
5) Once
6) Twice and more

32. When you were arrested, were you abused or insulted by the police?
3) Yes 2) No

33. When you were arrested, were you beaten or slapped by the police?
1) Yes 2) No

34. When you were arrested, did the police threaten you with a gun?
1) Yes 2) No

35. Were you tortured in the police custody?

1) Yes 2) No

36. If yes what were the things done to you?

1) Beaten 1) Yes 2) No
2) Chained to the ground 1) Yes 2) No
3) Denied water and food 1) Yes 2) No
4) Denied contact with relations / Lawyers 1) Yes 2) No
5) Burnt with hot object 1) Yes 2) No
6) Shocked with electric current 1) Yes 2) No
7) Pricked with needle or sharp objects 1) Yes 2) No
8) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………

37. Have you ever witnessed any of the following action by the police in Nigeria?
1) Police abusing a person 1) Yes 2) No
2) Police slapping a person 1) Yes 2) No
3) Police kicking a person 1) Yes 2) No
4) Police beating a person 1) Yes 2) No
5) Police injuring a person 1) Yes 2) No
6) Police pointing a gun at a person 1) Yes 2) No
7) Police shooting a person 1) Yes 2) No
8) Police helping a person 1) Yes 2) No
9) Police receiving bribe from people 1) Yes 2) No

38. Do you agree that the police in Nigeria abuse, beat and kick members of the
public only when provoked or challenged by members of the public?
1) Yes 2) No

92
39. How much do you think the police in Nigeria respect members of the police?
6) Very much
7) Much
8) Little
9) Very little

20. Have you ever:-

1) Abused a police officer? 1) Yes 2) No
2) Beat or slapped a police office? 1) Yes 2) No
3) Obstruct police from arresting someone? 1) Yes 2) No
4) Threw stones at police officer 1) Yes 2) No
5) Refuse to assist a police officer on duty? 1) Yes 2) No
10) Resist arrest by police?

21. Which of the following is the most important reason why police in Nigeria beat,
injure or kill members of the public.
9) The government supports the police for engaging in the act
10) The government orders the police to engage in the act
11) There are too many criminals in the country
12) The people are afraid of police
13) The police are not respected by the police
14) The police are frustrated
15) The police are corrupt
16) Other (specify)…………………………………….

22. Do you support the idea that State Governments should establish their own
police force?
1) Yes 2) No

23. Do you support the idea that Local Governments should establish their own
police force?
1) Yes 2) No

24. If yes to questions 24 and 25, which of the following is the most important reason
for your answer?
6) Will reduce crime
7) Will make police respect members of the public
8) Will make police men and women more comfortable
9) Will reduce police corruption and brutality
10) Other (specify)………………………………………

93
25. If no to question 24 and 25, which of the following is the most important reason
for your answer?
8) Too many police forces will lead to confusion and conflict.
9) It will not reduce crime
10) It will be used by politicians in power at state and local levels to oppress
opponents
11) State and Local Governments do not have enough money to properly run police
force.
12) It will make police more corrupt and violent
13) They will be used to rig elections
14) Other (specify)………………………………………………………….

26. What is your suggestion for improving the relationship between the police and
the public?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………

27. How effective is the Nigeria police in controlling crimes

5) Very effective
6) Effective
7) Ineffective
8) Very ineffective

28. Is Nigeria police becoming more or less violent in their relationship with
members of the public.
1) Less violent
2) More violent
3) Not more, not less violent

94