‘The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government.’ — Section 14 (2) (b)

INTRODUCTION

Section 4 of The Nigeria Police Establishment Act 2020 provides that ‘the police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other Act.’ In many jurisdictions of the world the police are in charge of security of lives and property and they deal with the civil populace in common matters of crime detection and investigation. The deployment of the armed forces would only occur in rare cases involving threat to national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity of the nation. The constant or permanent presence of soldiers on the streets of any country indicates a failure of its policing system. In simple terms, section 33 (1) guarantees to every person the inalienable right to life when it states that ‘every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.’ An underfunded, inefficient, ill-equipped and corrupt police system constitutes a grave threat to the security and lives of the people that it was established to protect and secure. Indeed, such valueless organization erodes national development which cannot co-exist within a state held down by terrorists, bandits, kidnappers, armed robbers and other criminals. In the peculiar circumstance of Nigeria however, the police deserve some commendation, if one takes into account the sacrifices of their men and officers, who buy their own kits, pay for virtually all their working tools and even take over the provision of infrastructure, such as buying generators to power their offices. Some of them who are fortunate to secure allocations in the barracks, which is defined to be ‘a housing characterized by extreme plainness or dreary uniformity’, or ‘a structure resembling a shed or barn that provides temporary housing’, have bitter tales to share. You can best imagine the state of the dwelling places of police officers that are expected to burst complicated crimes and crack very knotty cases. This may be why the police authorities will require a special task force to enforce the presidential directive on the withdrawal of policemen from private duties because some of them will surely prefer the life of private policing than the trauma of public service.

FUNDING FOR THE POLICE

In the case of Dada v State, we have the examples of brave police officers who defied the odds to track the accused person. They deployed the limited technology available for positive use in following all the leads that came their way, and they embraced community policing by working with the people to unravel the hidden mysteries of the dastardly criminals. In Dada v State, we have policemen who must have resisted the filthy lucre to compromise investigation. I have focused on the cases of Saheed v The People of Lagos and Dada v State to highlight the need to fund the police for greater effectiveness and to make the point that if properly funded and equipped, the Nigeria Police Force can perform their statutory roles creditably, like their counterparts in other jurisdictions. Permit me to share with you the facts of Dada v State.

REGULATING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

As shown in the case of Saheed v The People of Lagos that was reviewed in my previous articles on this point, Dada v State has brought to the fore an urgent and pressing need to regulate public transportation. Cases of ‘one chance’ by which criminally-minded persons deploy small buses and their private cars to perpetrate crime are very rampant. Commercial motorcycle riders popularly known as Okada have become a menace, especially as instruments of crime. These motorcycles are used in night and daylight robberies, kidnapping, banditry and even terrorism. But the people have little or no choice than to patronize them in the absence of an organized public transportation regime. The absence of an effective data regime for this vital sector of our national life also poses great danger to the security of lives and property of the citizens. But for the diligence of the police officers involved in the investigation of this case, the positive collaboration with the community and the efficient prosecution, the appellant would have gotten away with the crime.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of this case as reported in (2025) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2014) 213 are that the appellant was accused of kidnapping an eight-year-old girl, Mercy Ogunseye. He was subsequently charged to court for the offence of kidnapping contrary to section 3 of the Anti-Kidnapping and Anti-Abduction Law of Ondo State, 2010. At the trial, PW3 (a commercial motor cycle rider) testified that he gave a commercial ride to the appellant and the victim on his motorcycle on the day of the incident at about 4.30pm. PW3 described how the victim was seated sandwiched between him and the appellant on the motorcycle during the ride. PW3 said he noted that the appellant’s right hand was deformed because he dipped his left hand into his right hand’s side pocket to retrieve his fare for the ride, and handed it over with his left hand. PW3 testified that the appellant was the only passenger he had that day with a deformed right hand. Similarly, PW5 testified that he saw the appellant with the victim on PW3’s motorcycle at 5.00pm. PW5 said he gave up his turn to ride with PW3 to enable PW3 to give the commercial ride to the appellant and the victim. He corroborated the evidence of PW3 that the victim sat sandwiched between PW3 and the victim on the motorcycle. He testified that before PW3 returned to give him a ride, he (PW5) had walked to his destination. PW5 said he is a relation of the father of the victim (PW2), that he knew PW1 (the mother of the victim), and also knew PW3 before the day of the incident. He said that when the victim was being searched for, he identified PW3 as the person who transported the appellant and the victim on the previous day and was also able to describe the appellant and his deformed right hand to PW1 and PW2. The respondent also tendered the appellant’s confessional statements, but the appellant objected to its admissibility on grounds that the Investigating Police Officer (PW4) induced him to make the statements by promising that he would help the appellant get off the hook if he confessed to the crime. After a trial-within-trial, the trial court ruled that the confessional statements were voluntarily made, and it admitted them in evidence. In its judgment, the trial court found the case against the appellant proved, convicted him of the offence of kidnapping contrary to and punishable under section 3 of the Anti-kidnapping and Abduction Law of Ondo State 2010, and sentenced him to death. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction of the appellant, but allowed the appeal in part on the sentence and, in its stead, imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal.

THE JUDGMENT

The Three Ways of Proving Commission of Crime:

The three ways by which the prosecution can prove its case are: (a) Evidence of eye witnesses; (b) The confessional statement of the accused person; (c) Circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the evidence of PW3 fixed the appellant at the scene of the crime. The appellant did not challenge PW3’s description of his deformed right hand. There was no appeal against the identification of the appellant by the PW3 as a man with a deformed right hand. Similarly, the PW5 had seen the appellant with the victim on the motorcycle of PW3. PW5 knew PW1 and PW3 prior to the incident. And when the victim was being searched for, PW5 was able to identify PW3 as the commercial motorcycle rider who gave the appellant and the victim a ride the previous day. PW5 was also able to describe the appellant to PW1 and PW2 (the mother and the father of the victim). Further, PW5 stated the sitting arrangement of the victim and the appellant on the motorcycle as testified by PW3. In addition, PW5 testified that he knew the victim and would recognize her anywhere. The evidence of PW3 and PW5 identified the appellant and fixed him in a close contact with the victim on the motorcycle at the scene of the crime and it is binding on the appellant. And there is no evidence on record that the victim has been seen dead or alive later. The direct evidence of the PW3 and PW5 clearly showed the appellant’s direct involvement with the missing victim. Their evidence corroborated the contents of the appellant’s confessional statements exhibit “G” series to the effect that he kidnapped the victim whom he handed over to the 2nd accused person who was with some other persons unknown to him on a promise of being paid N150,000.

The Probative Value of Eye Witness Account

An eyewitness account is the best evidence in criminal trials and carries much weight. The evidence of an eye witness in any criminal proceedings is considered the best evidence worthy of belief and deserving of probative value in favour of the party’s case. An eyewitness testimony is usually the finest evidence in a criminal trial. In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not contradicted by the appellant or challenged; it was overwhelming, to say the least, contrary to the argument of the appellant that the conviction of the appellant ought not to stand outside the confessional statements of the appellant.

Update news