Police (35)
HELD:
"The issue of the extent of the investigative powers of the police with respect to a sitting Governor and the immunity enjoyed by him under Section 308 of the Constitution was addressed by the Supreme Court in Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. (supra) to the effect that, while a sitting Governor cannot be arrested nor proceeded with in Court either by civil or criminal proceedings, he can be investigated while in office and evidence gathered/assembled preparatory for use in impeachment proceedings against him or for prosecution when he vacates office.
HELD:
"Besides, the appellant being a Police officer trained in the use of firearms, had a duty to handle his firearm with care and not recklessly as he did in this case. The police have a legal duty to protect the citizenry and to uphold law and order. Their training in the use of firearms is not for the purpose of recklessly intimidating members of the public at the slightest opportunity." P.C. ADEUSI ADESINA v. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE(2019) LPELR-46403(SC) Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (P. 26, Paras. C-E)
FACTS:
HELD:
"It is trite in law that once a criminal allegation are made against a citizen, it is a constitutional and statutory duty of police to investigate, as investigation and detection of crime is one of the primary duties assigned to the police under the earlier cited Section 4 of the Police Act." BOBADE OLUTIDE & ORS v. ADAMS HAMZAT & ORS(2016) LPELR-26047(CA)Per DENTON-WEST, J.C.A. (P. 22, Paras. B-D)
FACTS:
HELD:
"It is trite in law that once a criminal allegation is made against a citizen, it is a constitutional and statutory duty of police to investigate, as investigation and detection of crime is one of the primary duties assigned to the police under the earlier cited Section 4 of the Police Act." BOBADE OLUTIDE & ORS v. ADAMS HAMZAT & ORS(2016) LPELR-26047(CA) Per DENTON-WEST, J.C.A. (Pp. 21-22, Paras. F-A)
FACTS:
"Not in dispute from the facts of this case as shown in the record of appeal is that the 1st Appellant who is alter ego of the 2nd Appellant was arrested and detained by the 1st-3rd Respondents between 19th October and 21st October 2015. This is obviously beyond 24 hours. Also not in dispute is that the matter that initiated this problem is from a loan secured by the 2nd Appellant from the 5th Respondent. The Appellants are saying that the arrest is predicated on a civil matter of a simple loan transaction. If it is so, I agree absolutely with the Appellants that the police have no right or duty to be involved in such matters.
"The primary duty of the Police by Section 4 of the Police Act is the prevention of crime, investigation and detection of crime and the prosecution of offenders: IBIYEYE vs. GOLD (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 659) 1074. The Police is not a debt recovery agency and has no business to dabble into contractual disputes between parties arising from purely civil transactions. See MCLAREN vs. JENNINGS (2003) FWLR (PT 154) 528. By all odds, the law is that a person who merely makes a report of a criminal infraction to the Police cannot be held accountable for the actions taken by the Police except where he was instrumental to and actively instigated their actions over and beyond mere lodging of a formal report of a criminal infraction. That is however not to say that when, as in the circumstances of this action, a purely civil matter is reported to the Police, such a person cannot go scot-free as the report ought not to have been made at all since it is not within the purview of Police duties. It is a report made malafide and he will be equally liable for the action taken by the Police irrespective of whether he actively instigated them or not, since he had no business involving the Police in a purely civil matter in the first place. Such conduct which portrays disregard of the law and is aimed at using the coercive powers of the State to punish a contracting party in a purely civil matter ought to be mulcted in exemplary damages." MR. PAULINUS OKAFOR & ANOR v. THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AIG ZONE II ONIKAN & ORS(2019)LPELR-46505(CA)Per OGAKWU, J.C.A. (Pp. 32-33, Paras. E-F)
FACTS:
"The other ancillary matter that remains to be considered is whether the 2nd respondent was properly sued in his personal capacity. The facts as revealed from the affidavit evidence in this case are that the 2nd respondent was the IPO. There is no evidence of what he has done that amounts to misuse of power under Section 341 of the Police Regulations made pursuant to Section 46 of THE POLICE ACT, CAP P19, LAWS OF THE FEDERATION, 2004. I see none. The 2nd respondent performed his duties in accordance with the law. I hold that he ought to have been sued with his rank and position as IPO and not in his individual capacity. The learned counsel to the appellant is clearly misconceived on this point as he has not shown either a misuse of power by the 2nd respondent or an act done in excess of his authority. See the cases of ODIONG V ASST. IGP (2013) LPELR-20698 and ANNGU V AROMONA & ORS (2016) LPELR-42950." MR. ALARAPON v. CHIEF NIYI OMOTARA & ORS(2019) LPELR-46385(CA) Per MAHMOUD, J.C.A. (Pp. 28-29, Paras. D-C)
FACTS: