Connect with us

The Oracle

Is the Judiciary Complicit in the Osun State Local Govt Debacle?

Published

on

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In a landmark decision in ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62576(SC) last year, the Supreme Court gave the local government system full autonomy, warning governors to keep their political fingers off Local Government Councils (LGCs). The legal status of the LGCs in Osun State has however been the subject of intense political and judicial debate following the 2022 local government elections. The matter has seen multiple judicial determinations, culminating in two critical Federal High Court judgements; one obtained by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the other by the Action Peoples Party (APP). While both judgements invalidated the elections conducted by the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSSIEC), the judgement secured by APP remains the extant, binding, and subsisting legal authority, as no superior court has set it aside.

DISTORTION OF THE ESSENCE OF THE JUDGMENTS

In recent times, misinterpretations and misinformation have sought to distort the legal position, with some claiming that a recent Court of Appeal judgement reinstated the sacked local government officials. However, a critical examination of the Court of Appeal’s latest decision shows that it merely struck out the PDP’s appeal on the ground that no cause of action had arisen at the time of its filing. The position of the law in this regard is that when judgements are not to the substance of a case, they do not change the rights and liabilities of parties. See the case of IGBUNBOR V. AFOLABI (2001) FWLR (Pt. 59) 1284 at 165. Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not nullify or overturn the subsisting Federal High Court judgement granted in favour of APP, which therefore remains the authoritative and binding authority affecting the rights of the parties.

It is therefore meet that we clarify the foggy situation by analyzing the relevant judgements, applicable laws, and legal principles that govern the status of the 2022 Osun local government elections. This analysis will demonstrate that the local government councils were legally dissolved and that no subsequent judicial pronouncement had restored them. It will also demonstrate that the latest foiled invasion of many LGCs across Osun State by some APC persons is unconstitutional, illegal and amounted to self-help.

THE 2022 OSUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS HALLMARKED LEGAL CHALLENGES

The dispute over the Osun local government elections actually commenced in 2022, following the conduct of the elections by OSSIEC. The elections were challenged in court on the basis that OSSIEC had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, specifically sections 28, 29, 32, 98, and 150 thereof.

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the Action Peoples Party (APP) had separately instituted legal actions at the Federal High Court, seeking to have the elections nullified. The basis of these suits was OSSIEC’s alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions and constitutional violations.

THE PDP SUIT IN BRIEF

In the case of PDP, it was alleged that OSSIEC was planning to conduct local government election in Osun State in violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, specifically sections 28, 29, 30 and 150 thereof. PDP also called on the Federal High Court to apply the decision of the Supreme Court in OSSIEC & ANOR V. ACTION CONGRESS & ORS (2010) LLJR-SC (delivered in 2010), to the effect that any notice of a local government election which is not in compliance with the Electoral Act is null and void. The law in existence as at the time of filing the said suit was the OSSIEC Law, 2015 (as amended).

While the suit was pending, the Osun State House of Assembly repealed the existing 2015 amended OSSIEC Law, and enacted the new OSSIEC Law, 2022, which prescribed 360 days’ notice for election, same as contained in the Electoral Act, 2022. OSSIEC then, during the pendency of the action, published a notice of election prescribing only 60 days as against the 360 days specified by the OSSIEC Law and the Electoral Act.

PDP, then, by an order of court, amended its processes to bring in the new development. OSSIEC still went ahead with the conduct of the election and the All Progressives Congress (APC) participated despite the pendency of the suit at the Federal High Court. It was after the election that the APC and some of its candidates brought a joinder application to the suit in a representative capacity, for all its candidates who reportedly participated at the election. The Federal High Court granted their application for joinder and the whole court processes were amended to reflect all the parties and issues. On 25th November, 2022, the Federal High Court delivered a judgment in the suit, nullifying the election and consequentially sacking all the purported elected officials.

SUMMARY OF THE APP SUIT

The APP’s suit was similar to the PDP suit in all respects; the only difference being that the APP’s suit was filed after the enactment of the OSSIEC Law 2022 and after the publication of the 60-day election notice by OSSIEC, as against 360 days provided by the OSSIEC Law and the Electoral Act.

While both parties obtained favourable judgements, the judgement in the APP suit has become the legally binding decision, as APC’s appeal against it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the 13th of January, 2025, for want of diligent prosecution. This dismissal rendered the APP judgement the final and only subsisting authority on the matter.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTIONS

A. The FHC Judgement in APP v. OSIEC (Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/75/2022)

In this case filed by the Action Peoples Party (APP), the Federal High Court (FHC), delivered a landmark judgement that rendered the October 15, 2022, Osun Statw local government elections null and void. The court held that the elections violated the Electoral Act, 2022, and were also inconsistent with the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.

The FHC in the APP case held as follows:

– “The election into local government councils across Osun State held on the 15th of October 2022, pursuant to the notice of election issued on the 15th of August 2022, is hereby declared unconstitutional, invalid, null, and void for violation of the Constitution and breach of Sections 28, 29, 32, 98, and 150 of the Electoral Act, 2022.”

– “All persons or individuals occupying offices in the state local government councils by virtue of the said election are accordingly sacked from holding such offices.”

– “Sections 25 and 26 of the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission Law, 2022, having been enacted in contravention of Paragraph 12 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution and being inconsistent with Sections 29 and 32 of the Electoral Act, 2022, are hereby struck down.”

I agree with the decision of the FHC because it is trite law that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void and must be struck down because the Constitution is the grundnorm of the land (see section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 [as amended]). The Supreme Court, Per JAURO, JSC, pronounced on the supremacy of the Constitution in NPF & ORS V POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (2023) LPELR-60782(SC) (P.154, paras. A-F), thus:

“It is equally imperative to restate the elementary principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the grundnorm, the basic law of the land. It stands head and shoulders above any other law or instrument enacted by the National Assembly, State House of Assembly or any other person or authority empowered in that regard. It is from the Constitution that every other enactment or instrument derive their validity and binding force. The doctrine of the Supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution is traceable to Section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), which provides thus: “1. Supremacy of the Constitution (1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

Consequently, as was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of PEENOK INVESTMENTS LIMITED V HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1982) 12 SC 1, there is undoubted power in the Court to declare null and void any law that conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution”. See also the cases of HON. INAJOKU & ORS V. ADELEKE & ORS (2007) ALL FWLR; OLAFISOYE V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2004) ALL FWLR 1106; AINABEBHOLO V. EDO STATE UNIVERSITY WORKERS FARMERS MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (2007) ALL FWLR 712; PDP v. EDEDE & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57480(CA); PRESIDENT OF THE FRN & ORS v. ISA & ORS (2015) LPELR-25981(CA); and, AG FEDERATION & ORS v. ABUBAKAR & ORS (2007) LPELR-3(SC).

The legal implication of this judgement cannot be overstated. By declaring the 2022 Osun State LG elections unconstitutional, null and void, the court completely erased any legal foundation for the existence of the local government councils elected through that flawed process. The said APP judgement was also a judgement in rem, meaning that it applied to the whole world, all parties and stakeholders, and non-parties alike, irrespective of whether or not they participated in the litigation. In DIKE & ORS V. NZEKA II & ORS (1986) LPELR-945 (SC), the Supreme Court underscored this point most lucidly when it held:

“… A judgment is said to be in rem when it is an adjudication pronounced upon the status of some particular thing or subject matter by a Tribunal having the jurisdiction and the competence to pronounce on that Status. Such a judgment is usually and invariably founded on proceedings instituted against or on something or subject-matter whose status or condition is to be determined. It is thus a solemn declaration on the status of some persons or thing. It is therefore binding on all persons in so far as their interests in the status of the property or person are concerned. That is why a judgment in rem is a judgment contra mundum – binding on the whole world – parties as well as non-parties. ….”

See also the cases of OYETOLA & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR-60392(SC); and, A.G. ABIA STATE & ORS V. A.G. OF THE FEDERATION (2022) LPELR-57010 (SC).

B. The Dismissal of APC’s Subsequent Appeal and the Finality of the APP Judgement

Following the Federal High Court’s judgement, the All Progressives Congress (APC), which had benefited from the October 2022 elections, appealed the judgement in the case filed by APP. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the 13th of January, 2025, for want of diligent prosecution.

The legal implication of that dismissal is that the FHC’s judgement in the APP case remains the extant and binding position of the law. Under section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, all authorities and persons within Nigeria, including government institutions, political parties, and law enforcement agencies are obligated to enforce and abide by the said judgement, the appeal arising therefrom having been dismissed.

The current legal position on the status of the Osun State LGCs following these decisions of both the FHC, Oshogbo, and the Court of Appeal is that the earlier judgment of the FHC, which nullified the local government elections conducted on October 15, 2022, remains binding and validly subsisting. The election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022 therefore stands nullified, while all candidates in that election remain sacked. This will continue to be the position of the law until the judgment is set aside by the apex court of the land at the instance of the APP.

C. The PDP Case and the Court of Appeal’s Technical Dismissal of Same

The PDP had in a separate case similar to APP’s, also challenged the legality of the OSSIEC conducted elections. The FHC sitting in Oshogbo had held in its favour. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal sitting at Akure struck it out on technical grounds. The court held that the PDP’s case was premature and speculative, having been filed prematurely when notice of the election had not yet been issued at the time of filing. This, in the intermediate Court’s view, deprived the FHC of jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is respectfully submitted that the Court of Appeal was right as is trite that where a matter is instituted when no cause of action has arisen, the doctrine of ripeness applies and such a matter becomes merely speculative and amounts to an academic exercise. This position of the law was upheld in the cases of EDEVIE V. OROHWEDOR & ORS (2022) LPELR-58931 (SC); OGBIMI V. OLOLO & ORS (1993) LPELR-2280(SC); and, UWAZURUONYE v. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR-20604(SC).

It must be understood that this judgement did not invalidate the decision earlier obtained by APP at the FHC. Rather, it was a purely procedural decision that had no bearing whatsoever on the substantive matter – the validity or invalidity of the Osun State LG elections. The Court of Appeal held as follows:

“As at the time the PDP brought the suit, the cause of action had not arisen because the notice of election had not been issued. The suit was therefore premature.”

This judgement merely struck out the PDP’s appeal without ruling on the legality or otherwise of the elections. Nor were consequential orders made. More significantly, no declaration or consequential orders were made reinstating the ousted local government officials. When no consequential orders are made in a suit, the status quo remains as contained in the judgement appealed against. See the cases of AKINBOBOLA V. PLISSON FISKO (NIG) LTD & ORS (1991) LPELR-343(SC) and FCDA STAFF MULTI-PURPOSE (COOP) SOCIETY & ORS V. SAMCHI & ANOR (2018) LPELR-444380(CA). The fundamental issues that could have propelled the Court of Appeal to pronounce on the validity or otherwise of the notice of election and the propriety or otherwise of sacking the APC purported elected council officials who had participated in the said election were never considered by the Court of Appeal as they were treated as academic.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: THE INCONTROVERTIBLE DISSOLUTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS

1. The 2022 Osun State LG Elections Were Null and Void

By virtue of the APP FHC judgement, the 2022 Osun local government elections were clearly unconstitutional and void from the outset. As a matter of law, a void act confers no legal right. When an act is void, it is void for all times and is not required to be set aside. In the case of OYENEYIN & ANOR V. AKINKUGBE & ANOR (2010) LPELR-2875 (SC), the apex court held that:

“In law, a void act is an act which has no legal effect or consequence. It does not confer any legal right or title whatsoever, and it does not impose any legal obligation or liability on any one or make any party liable to suffer any penalty or disadvantage.”

In simple terms, one cannot put something upon nothing and expect it to stand. It will collapse. See the cases of LEONARD MACFOY V. UAC LIMITED (1962) AC 152; OKWUOSA V. GOMWALK & ORS (2017) LPELR-41736 (SC); IFEANYI V. OGBA & ORS (2022) LPELR-58787(SC); and, MUSTAPHA & ORS V. ADENOPO & ORS (2020) LPELR-51409(CA). Consequently, no political party, individual or group can lay any valid claim to any Osun State local government offices based on the voided election.

2. All Purported Local Government Officials Remain Legally Removed from Office

Since the FHC in the APP case had expressly sacked all persons occupying the local government positions and no appellate court has reversed that judgement, all the said officials remain legally removed from office. The said judgement remains binding on all parties and the whole world until set aside.

Indeed, the Supreme Court had upheld this position of the law in NGERE & ANOR v. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC), where it held:

“…The judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction subsists until upset on appeal. While the judgment subsists, every person affected by it or against whom an order is made must obey it even if it appears wrong. Judgments take effect immediately they are delivered and every Court has inherent power to proceed to enforce judgments at once. The enforcements on delivery can only be interrupted by a stay of execution provided there is an appeal.”

3. The Court of Appeal’s Judgement in the PDP Appeal Did Not Reinstate Anyone

Contrary to the position of the sacked LG officials who had sought to forcibly gate-crash into their offices, the Court of Appeal never reinstated any sacked LG officials. It merely struck out the PDP’s case without considering or commenting on the validity or otherwise of the voided elections. Consequently, any claim that the Court of Appeal reinstated the ousted chairmen is a deliberate distortion of facts and a result to sophistry.

4. The APP Judgement Is Binding on All Parties

Since APC’s appeal against the APP FHC judgement was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, that judgement remains final and binding on all political parties, individuals and institutions in Osun State. See the case of NOEKOER V. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44350(SC), where the apex court held that:

“it is well settled law that the judgement of a competent court subsists and remains binding until it is set aside on appeal”.

5. Any Attempt to Reoccupy Local Government Offices Is Unconstitutional and Amounts to Self Help

Any action taken by political actors to forcefully invade and reoccupy LG offices as was witnessed few days ago is not only illegal but also constitutes a contemptuous disregard of a valid and subsisting court judgement; and indeed a resort to self help, viet armis. The law forbids such resort to self-help by parties in a pending matter with a view to usurping the functions of a court of law. The Supreme Court in AGBAI & ORS V. OKOGBUE (1991) LPELR-225 (SC) 69-70, F-A, trenchantly cautioned that:

“The ratio decidendi of the decision of this Court in Ojukwu’s case is that once there is lis inter partes and the Courts of law are seised with the dispute, no person or authority, whether parties to the lis or not, is allowed by the Constitution to usurp the functions of the Court of law. It is the duty of every person or authority not to interfere with the legal and judicial process from taking its due course.”

The Supreme Court further confirms this position in NWAKIRE v COP (1992) LPELR-2097 (SC) 42-43, A-D, where it held thus:

“That self-help is not allowed in adjudication has been firmly ensconced in the jurisprudence of this nation like the Rock of Gibraltar, which position remains as constant, in Caesar’s words in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “as the Northern Star”.

See the causa celere case of MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE V. OJUKWU & ANOR (1986) LPELR-3186 (SC). See also GARBA V. FCSC (1988) LPELR-1304 (SC) 28-29.

6. The Court of Appeal did not make any consequential Order of Re-instatement of the Sacked LG Officials

It must again be emphasised for the umpteenth time that the Court of Appeal in the PDP appeal decision never validated the election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022 under any guise as the issues on the validity of the election that could have led to a pronouncement on whether or not the APC candidates were rightly sacked were never considered. As a result, there was no consequential order for reinstatement by the Court of Appeal. The only consequential order by the Court of Appeal was an order directing PDP to pay a cost of N250,000 to the Appellants. NO MORE, NO LESS!

CONCLUSION

UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW

The Judiciary’s intervention in both the PDP and APP cases rather than show a Judiciary that is complicit, actually underscored the supremacy of the Electoral Act over state laws in regulating local government elections. Under Nigerian legal jurisprudence, the doctrine of “covering the field” applies here, which provides that all state laws which are inconsistent with federal laws are to the extent of those inconsistencies, null and void. In the case of A.G LAGOS STATE V. EKO HOTELS (2017) LPELR-43713(SC), the apex court expounded on the doctrine of covering the field thus:

“If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the Law made by the National Assembly will prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of its inconsistency be void” – Section 4(5) CFRN 1999 {As Amended}. This, in clear language, means that only the law validly enacted by the federal legislature will prevail on that which is also validly made by the state house of assembly but this is only where that State Law is inconsistent with that of the Federal law.”

Similarly, in FRIDAY & ORS v. GOV OF ONDO STATE & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7886(CA), the appellate court held thus:

“…It is thus legal and legitimate for both the National Assembly and a State House of Assembly to legislate on same subject matter provided there is no inconsistency from the State law. Where there is inconsistency however, the State law will be declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency, and in order not to create any vacuum, resort will be had to the old jurisprudential principle of covering the field, that is to say, that since there is a Federal Legislation on the subject matter, it is not necessary for a Federating State to legislate on that area and the provision made by the National Assembly covers the subject matter in question.”

See also the cases of O.S.I.E.C. V. A.C (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 273; NPF & ORS V. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (2023) LPELR-60782 (SC); INEC V. MUSA (2003) LPELR-24927 (SC); and, AIRTEL NETWORKS LTD V. AG OF KWARA STATE & ANOR (2014) LPELR-23790 (CA).

All the judgements involved in these cases actually reaffirmed the necessity for electoral bodies to adhere strictly to established legal frameworks, ensuring transparency and compliance in the electoral process. See the cases of AUGUSTINE & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2024) LPELR-61876(SC) and BUHARI Vs. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (1120) 246. Such a judgement serves as a significant precedent for future electoral disputes in Nigeria, thus emphasizing the importance of lawful conduct in the governance process. The Court of Appeal in the PDP appeal having struck out the suit without considering the merit of the decision as regards the validity or otherwise of the election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022, the effect is that the suit filed by the PDP never existed in the eyes of the law.

However, the Court of Appeal in the PDP case did not strike down the judgment of the FHC in the APP case, nor did it validate the 2022 LG election and re-instate the sacked LG officials. The FHC’s decision in the APP case thus remains the only definitive legal authority on the status of the 2022 Osun State LG elections. Until and unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the said elections remain null, void, and of no effect whatsoever. No person elected in that flawed process can lay any lawful claim to any office.

Any claim to the contrary is a deliberate misinterpretation of the legal position and constitutes an attempt to undermine the rule of law and subvert the judicial process. Such would also serve as a subterfuge to the powers and decisions of arguably the most important arm of government – the Judiciary.

THE COURT’S DECISION IN THE OSUN LG BROUHAHA MUST BE EXECUTED

It is now the duty of law enforcement agencies and government institutions to ensure that all judicial decisions involved in these cases are respected and upheld. It is trite that all persons and authorities must obey judgements of courts and parties are not permitted to pick and choose which judgements to obey, or which to disobey. This legal principle was emphasised in the case of PDP v. LALONG & ORS (2023) LPELR-61629(CA), where the intermediate court held thus:

“By the provision of Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, all authorities and persons, including this Court, are expected to observe and ensure the compliance of order/judgments of the Court including High Court particularly orders/judgments that are in rem…An order of a competent Court of law, no matter its nature, is absolute and binding on all and sundry without question until it is legally and legitimately set aside by a competent Court of appellate jurisdiction. The fact of its being final or interim does not therefore affect its application and effectiveness. It remains valid and enforceable and must be obeyed”.

See also the cases of NGERE & ANOR v. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC); SHUGABA V. U.B.N. PLC (1999) LPELR – 3068 (SC); and, OBOH & ANOR V. NFL & ORS (2016) LPELR-50559 (CA).

THE LAW MUST BE VISITED ON THOSE WHO RESORTED TO SELF-HELP

I watched with dismay and disgust the act of certain LG officials who forcefully barged into the LG headquarters, attempting to reclaim office in the false and erroneous belief that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the PDP case had re-instated them to their official positions, such was nothing short of brigandage and crude resort to self help. It must be condemned in the strongest terms and I so condemn it. It was selfish and uncalled for. In the same vein, all those who aided and abetted this democratic aberration must be fished out and charged before the law courts, however highly placed they are.

ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY?

My above take is not to say that there is no remedy available to the sacked officials; they still have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in the APP case. But until the Supreme Court overturns the valid and subsisting judgment in rem of the FHC in the APP case, the said judgment remains binding on all parties.

The irresistible conclusion to be drawn from these events is that all LG offices across Osun State remain vacant and that the sacked APC officials cannot lay claim to the benefit of any judgement to occupy the council offices until they obtain a different outcome, if any, from the apex court. This is the LAW.

THE WAY FORWARD

To save themselves from needless orchestrated violence, all the political parties in Osun State should go for fresh polls and test their popularity in a free, fair and credible election. Politicians should leave the Judiciary alone by playing clean politics. As to the title of this piece, my humble submission is that the Judiciary was not in any way complicit in the Osun State LG imbroglio. Rather, it acted in good faith, striving fiercely to defend the rule of law and uphold electoral integrity.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Oracle

The Oracle: When a Nation Undermines Citizens’ Rights (Pt. 4)

Published

on

By

By Prof .Ike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In our last outing on this treatise, we addressed the operational weaknesses and structural mismanagement of the Police; the failure of internal accountability; collusion of its men with criminal networks; erosion of civil liberties by its illegitimate enforcement practices; and cycle of impunity. And later followed by analysis of the abuse of judicial power as well as executive lawlessness directed at the Bench. We then concluded with suggested pathways and recommendations. Today, we shall continue with the same theme focusing on strengthening judicial independence; institutionalizing a comprehensive anti-corruption framework; enhancing the protection of civil liberties; community-based security initiatives; electoral integrity; transparency in the public sector; protecting vulnerable and marginalized groups as well as institutionalizing a culture of consequences. Enjoy.

Judicial Strengthening and Independence
The Judiciary should be insulated from political interference through secure tenure, adequate remuneration, and independent budgetary control. Court processes must be digitized to reduce delays and enhance transparency. Special courts should be created to fast-track cases of corruption, rights violations, and electoral offences so as to prevent them from being lost in a backlog of other matters.

Comprehensive Anti-Corruption Framework
Anti-corruption agencies must operate without political bias. Investigations and prosecutions should be based solely on evidence, regardless of the political or social standing of the suspect. Asset recovery processes should be transparent, and recovered funds must be channeled directly into public services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Strengthening of Civil Liberties Protections
Security laws and policies must be reviewed to remove provisions that allow arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention without trial, and excessive surveillance. The rights to free expression, peaceful assembly, and privacy should be reaffirmed through legislation, judicial precedent, and administrative directives. Security personnel should receive specific training on respecting these rights in the course of their duties.

Enhanced Community-Based Security Initiatives

Community policing structures should be developed in partnership with local stakeholders, including traditional leaders, civil society, and youth groups. These initiatives should focus on early conflict detection, intelligence sharing, and non-violent dispute resolution. Proper integration of community policing into the national security architecture can improve trust and cooperation between citizens and the State.

Electoral Integrity and Protection of the Political Process

To reduce politically motivated violence, security forces must adopt a neutral stance in elections and enforce the law impartially. Electoral offenders, including those within security agencies, must face swift prosecution. The deployment of technology in elections, such as biometric verification, should be protected by strong legal safeguards to prevent manipulation. More importantly, the Electoral Act must be urgently amended to include the use of BIVAS, electronic voting and real time transfer of results into IReV.

Public Sector Transparency and Open Data
Transparency in governance can significantly reduce opportunities for abuse of power. All government agencies should be required to publish regular reports on budgets, procurement, and performance indicators. Public access to information should be enhanced through stronger Freedom of Information laws and proactive disclosure of records.

Protection of Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups

Special attention should be given to protecting women, children, marginalized vulnerable persons and minorities and communities, who are disproportionately affected by rights violations and insecurity. Law enforcement and judicial olicers should be trained to handle cases involving such vulnerable groups with sensitivity. Dedicated units within security agencies should be tasked with preventing and responding to gender-based violence, child labour, human trafficking and exploitation.

Institutionalizing a Culture of Consequence
The single most important factor in ending impunity is ensuring that misconduct always attracts consequences. Disciplinary actions, criminal prosecutions and public reporting of case outcomes should become the norm. Political leaders must set the example by submitting themselves to the rule of law. They must lead by example and not by precepts.

CONCLUSION

The challenges confronting Nigeria in the areas of security, protection of citizens’ rights and enforcement of the rule of law are deeply rooted in a pattern of institutional neglect and governance failure. Throughout this work, it has become evident that insecurity in the country is not only result of violent crime or terrorism but also a product of weak and compromised institutions that allow such threats to flourish. When the very institutions tasked with safeguarding the people become unreliable or complicit, the result is a petrified environment where justice is selective, rights are precarious, and the social contract between citizens and the State is broken.

The evidence is clear that insecurity in Nigeria is a multi-dimensional crisis. Political violence undermines democratic processes. Economic hardship is exacerbated by corruption and the diversion of resources. Physical insecurity in many regions persists because law enforcement is either absent or compromised. The deterioration of education and healthcare further exposes the population to long-term instability. Each of these problems is interconnected and magnified by the failure of the justice and enforcement systems to function impartially and effectively.

Civil liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution and supported by international treaties, are repeatedly undermined by arbitrary arrests, unlawful detentions, and the suppression of free expression. When citizens live in fear of those entrusted to protect them, the legitimacy of the State is called into question. A society where speaking out invites retaliation and where wrongdoing by the powerful is met with silence or even approbation cannot claim to uphold the principles of democracy and justice.

The normalization of impunity is perhaps the most dangerous of all the trends identified. Impunity corrodes public trust, emboldens offenders, and creates a culture where breaking the law is not an aberration but an accepted norm of political and social life. Without decisive action to reverse this culture, every other reform will be weakened before it begins to take root.

Nigeria’s peculiar security realities demand a holistic approach. This includes rebuilding law enforcement into a professional, rights-respecting institution, ensuring the judiciary is free from political interference, and creating genuine accountability mechanisms that apply to everyone regardless of status. It also requires an investment in transparency, community trust, and the protection of vulnerable groups who suffer most from both insecurity and rights violations.

The task is undeniably challenging, but it is not impossible. The pathway to a more secure and just Nigeria begins with the recognition that true security cannot exist without justice, and justice cannot thrive without the rule of law. By committing to comprehensive reforms and by holding both leaders and institutions accountable, Nigeria can reclaim the promise of a society where rights are protected, laws are respected, and security is the shared foundation for national progress. In all these, one may ask, where is the Bar and what is its historic role? A once vibrant Association feared by the corrupt and dreaded by all successive governments has since become comatose, hardly responsive to societal needs. Aside many lawyers now professionally practising Bar instead of practising law by oscillating from one office to another over a period of decades, what has the Bar got to show for its continued relevance in terms of interrogating the status quo and challenging impunity? How has the Bar fared in holding governments responsible and accountable to the Nigerian people? Aside converging every year at designated venues for the annual ritual of the AGC, what dividends have we yielded from our usual banal communiqué?

How have we pushed to ensure we engaged the three arms of government to overhaul or at least improve on the status quo? Can we now blame some lawyers who are increasingly feeling disenchanted with the status quo and seek alternative platforms such as the Nigerian Law Society (NLS)? I think not. Colleagues, let us as lawyers and Judges wake up from our deep slumber of complicit silence and stop seeing law solely as a bread-and -butter profession. We must see law from the prism of Professor Dean Roscoe Pound-an instrument of social engineering. Anything short of this is not befitting of the legal profession. (Concluded).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“We cannot reform institutional racism or systemic policies if we are not actively engaged. It’s not enough to simply complain about injustice; the only way to prevent future injustice is to create the society we would like to see, one where we are all equal under the law”. (Al Sharpton).

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: When a Nation Undermines Citizens’ Rights (Pt. 3)

Published

on

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The last installment of this series continued from where the inaugural one stopped: the analogy of each corpse buried without justice being a clause in the Constitution buried in effigy. It then explained how inequality breeds violence, before moving onto how systemic lapses in law enforcement is the hidden engine of insecurity and erosion of rights. Later, it examined the contrast between constitutional mandate and institutional reality, followed by the politicization and weaponization of law enforcement; corruption as operational culture; and finally operational weaknesses and structural management. The week, we shall continue with same theme, after which we shall delve into the failure of internal accountability; collusion with criminal networks; erosion of civil liberties through enforcement practices; the cycle of impunity; abuse of judicial power and executive lawlessness targeted at the Bench. Thereafter, we shall consider various pathways and recommendations for addressing insecurity, rights protection and institutional weakness. Enjoy.

OPERATIONAL WEAKNESSES AND STRUCTURAL MISMANAGEMENT

Nigeria’s police-to-population ratio remains alarmingly low. With about 371,800 officers serving a population of over 236 million people, the country is well below the United Nations’ recommended benchmark of 222 officers per 100,000 people. This manpower gap severely hampers the Force’s capacity to tackle crime, especially in volatile areas plagued by insurgency and communal violence. To make matters worse, many of the limited officers available are deployed to safeguard high-profile politicians and elites rather than serving the broader public. In rural communities, especially in conflict-affected northern states, residents report waiting hours, sometimes days, for police to respond to distress calls, if they ever respond at all.

Compounding this problem is inadequate training. Many recruits receive minimal exposure to forensic methods, human rights protocols, or community policing principles. As a result, investigative work relies heavily on confessions, which are frequently extracted through coercion or torture. This not only violates constitutional guarantees against inhuman treatment but also produces unreliable evidence that weakens prosecutions.

Logistical deficits are equally damaging. Many police divisions operate without functioning patrol vehicles, secure communication equipment, or modern crime labs. The Inspector General of Police has acknowledged that, outside of Lagos, forensic capability is virtually non-existent. Without scientific investigation, crimes are either left unsolved or result in wrongful arrests, further undermining public trust

FAILURE OF INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY

In a functioning democracy, law enforcement personnel are subject to robust oversight, both internally and through independent bodies. In Nigeria, oversight mechanisms exist in name but not in consistent practice. The Police Service Commission (PSC), which is meant to handle recruitment, promotion, and discipline, is itself politically influenced and suffers from inadequate funding. Complaints of misconduct often disappear into opaque disciplinary processes, and there is little transparency about the outcomes.

When abuses are too public to ignore, as with the October 2020 End SARS protests, Commissions of Inquiry are established, testimonies are heard, and reports are submitted. Yet, implementation of recommendations remains rare. In Lagos, for example, despite the panel’s findings implicating specific officers in excessive force and unlawful killings, few have been prosecuted. Instead, many have returned quietly to duty. This pattern sends a dangerous message to the rank-and-file officers: violations carry reputational risk but rarely legal consequence.

COLLUSION WITH CRIMINAL NETWORKS

Perhaps the most alarming dimension of enforcement failure is the documented collusion between security personnel and criminal actors. In the Niger Delta, security forces have been implicated in illegal oil bunkering, the very crime they are deployed to prevent. In parts of the North-West, reports from Amnesty International and local media allege that bandit groups pay “protection fees” to avoid military or police raids.

Such collusion transforms law enforcement from an adversary of crime into a stakeholder in it. This is not merely passive negligence; it is active participation in the shadow economy of insecurity. In these areas, communities quickly learn that reporting crimes may not only be futile but dangerous, as information shared with authorities can be leaked to perpetrators.

EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES THROUGH ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES

The systemic lapses in law enforcement also directly erode civil liberties. Arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions without trial, suppression of lawful assembly, and harassment of journalists are not isolated acts but part of an entrenched enforcement culture. The constitutional right to personal liberty under Section 35 is regularly violated under the guise of maintaining public order.

Protesters face preemptive crackdowns, often justified by vague references to national security. During the #Revolution Now protests in 2019, dozens of demonstrators were detained, some for weeks, without formal charges. In many cases, court orders for their release were ignored by security agencies, underscoring the absence of legal consequence for disobedience of judicial authority.
This disregard for civil liberties creates a chilling effect on political participation and civic engagement. Citizens learn that speaking out carries personal risk, and self-censorship becomes a survival strategy. Over time, this quietens public dissent, enabling further abuses by both government and non-state actors.

THE CYCLE OF IMPUNITY

The combination of politicization, corruption, operational weakness, and lack of accountability feeds into a self-reinforcing cycle of impunity. Officers learn that their actions are judged not by legality but by political expediency. Politicians, in turn, see law enforcement as a tool to protect themselves and punish adversaries. Criminal networks exploit these gaps, securing protection through bribery or political patronage.

Once entrenched, this cycle is difficult to break. Each unpunished violation becomes a precedent, normalizing the idea that power grants immunity from the law. This normalization spreads beyond law enforcement to other institutions, eroding the very foundations of democratic governance.

THE ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER AND EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS AGAINST THE BENCH

In a functioning democracy, the judiciary serves as the impartial referee between the powerful and the powerless. It is the last line of defence for the citizen and the final hope for justice. But what happens when that sacred institution itself becomes the object of aggression? What happens when the enforcers of state power turn their weapons not on criminals, but on the judges who interpret the law? Nigeria confronted these very questions in October 2016, when the homes of senior judges across the country were invaded by heavily armed operatives of the Department of State Services under the cover of night.

These raids, carried out in Abuja, Gombe, and Port Harcourt, targeted some of the most senior members of the judiciary, including Justices Walter Onnoghen and Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court, and Federal High Court judges Adeniyi Ademola and Nnamdi Dimgba. The DSS claimed they were investigating corruption, yet their conduct betrayed a more sinister motive. Homes were stormed in Gestapo fashion, judges were treated like fugitives, and search warrants reportedly carried incorrect names or were not presented at all. The judiciary was under siege. In Rivers State, Governor Nyesom Wike arrived at the residence of one of the judges to intervene and was reportedly shoved, injured, and threatened by DSS operatives. It was not an arrest. It was a constitutional assault.

I spoke firmly and publicly against this invasion. I said then what I still affirm now: the DSS acted outside the bounds of the law. As I told journalists and as reported by Premium Times, the operation was not only illegal and unconstitutional but a dangerous desecration of the rule of law. No agency of government, including the DSS, has the authority to arrest or search the premises of serving judicial officers without going through the National Judicial Council, which is constitutionally empowered to discipline judges. If there are allegations of corruption, there is a process. That process was willfully ignored. What we saw instead was a show of force meant to intimidate and humiliate. It was executive lawlessness under the guise of anti-corruption.

The greatest tragedy, however, was not merely that these events occurred. It was the manner in which they were received. The Bar, which ought to have risen as a united force, was sluggish in its response. Statements were issued, but no real action followed. There were no mass protests, no urgent court filings to challenge the illegality. The judiciary itself offered little more than murmurs of disapproval. That silence was deafening. It spoke to a larger issue: the slow death of institutional courage. When judges are raided in their homes and lawyers look away, then the entire legal profession stands indicted. If we cannot defend our own, how then can we defend the people?

This unfortunate episode also calls into question the internal health of the judiciary. The Nigerian Law Society recently criticized the widespread abuse of power within judicial institutions, pointing to opaque appointments, poor welfare, and inconsistent rulings. According to their statement reported by the Guardian, the lower courts remain underpaid and under-respected, leaving many judicial officers vulnerable to compromise. It is undeniable that some within the judiciary have failed in their duties, and that corruption has indeed crept into its chambers. However, even in the face of that, the remedy is never brute force. It is lawful accountability, constitutional procedure, and institutional reform. The rule of law must never be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
When security agents raid the homes of judges without due process, they are not upholding the law, they are undermining it. And when the legal community reacts with silence or justification, it invites a repeat. What began with judges will not end there. Such violations set a precedent that can easily extend to journalists, lawmakers, academics, and eventually, ordinary citizens. Today it is the gavel. Tomorrow it will be the pen, the vote, the voice. That is how authoritarianism begins not always with a declaration, but often with silence.

It is not too late to reset the balance. But we must remember that a judiciary that submits to fear is no judiciary at all. A legal profession that only whispers in the face of injustice is unworthy of its robes. We must return to our roots, as defenders of liberty and protectors of due process. Let the judiciary regain its independence, and let the Bar reclaim its courage. Only then can we begin to restore the broken faith between the Nigerian people and the system that was meant to serve them.

PATHWAYS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING SECURITY, RIGHTS PROTECTION, AND INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS IN NIGERIA

The challenges outlined in this paper reveal a complex web of governance failures, enforcement gaps and systemic disregard for constitutional rights. Addressing these issues requires deliberate and sustained action across multiple fronts. The following ten pathways provide a practical blueprint for reform.

Reform of Law Enforcement Institutions
The Nigerian Police Force, the Department of State Services, and related agencies need deep structural reforms. Recruitment should be based on merit and integrity rather than political patronage. Training should include human rights education, forensic investigation, and conflict-sensitive community policing. The practice of diverting a large proportion of officers to serve political elites must be stopped so that policing resources are redirected toward public safety.

Creation of Independent Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms

A civilian-led oversight authority should be established with the power to investigate and prosecute cases of misconduct by law enforcement officials. This body must have full access to records, the ability to compel testimony, and legal safeguards for whistleblowers. Its findings should be made public to ensure transparency and build trust. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Money and corruption are ruining the land, crooked politicians betray the working man, pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep, and we’re tired of hearing promises that we know they’ll never keep” – Ray Davies

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: When a Nation Undermines Citizens’ Rights (Pt. 2)

Published

on

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The inaugural installment of this treatise dealt with the scope of insecurity in Nigeria and examined its dimensions. It was followed by a discussion of the constitutional framework of the right to life graphically depicting it as “each corpse buried without justice” being a clause in the Constitution burned in effigy.

This week’s episode will continue with same theme, followed by an in-depth analysis of how inequality breeds violence as well as how systemic lapses in law enforcement are the hidden drivers of insecurity and the erosion of rights. Thereafter, we shall discuss the contrast between constitutional mandate and institutional reality of law enforcement; its politicization and weaponization; the incidence of corruption as operational culture in law enforcement and its inherent operational weakness and challenges in its structural management. Enjoy.

EACH CORPSE BURIED WITHOUT JUSTICE IS A CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION BURNED IN EFFIGY (Continues).

Even the criminal justice system, meant to operationalize the Constitution, has virtually collapsed into spectacle. The police extort with impunity. The courts delay justice until justice becomes irrelevant. Prisons overflow with awaiting trial inmates while politicians accused of looting billions of our common patrimony stroll freely through airport lounges, attending graduation events where they are conferred with purchased honorary doctorate degrees. A man who steals bread is lynched. A senator who steals a nation is given a chieftaincy title. Is this the rule of law, or the rule of rot?

Let us not forget Chapter II of the Constitution, the so-called Directive Principles of State Policy. These are the clauses that outline a vision for a just and egalitarian society free education, affordable healthcare, equal opportunity, protection of the vulnerable, decent wages, access to housing, food security, and the equitable distribution of national wealth. But here lies the deception: these provisions are rendered non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c). In plain terms, they are promises the people cannot enforce. The Constitution dreams on their behalf, but denies them the legal means to wake that dream into action.

When a State says to its citizens, “we guarantee you food, education, and health,” and then adds a footnote saying, “but you may not ask us for it,” what emerges is not democracy it is deception. And deception is the mother of despair. Despair, when left to fester, breeds defiance. And defiance, when met without justice, becomes insurrection. That is the cycle Nigeria is now trapped in a spiral of constitutional promises turned into societal wounds.

The Constitution becomes a parody in the mouths of politicians who have never read it and judges who are too timid to enforce it. For the powerful, it is a shield; for the poor, a sword turned inward. The elite recite its sections during legal battles over electoral fraud. But where are these recitations when 652 children die of hunger in Katsina? Where are the legal arguments when a woman in Makurdi loses all her children to a communal massacre? When the man in Sokoto can no longer afford petrol, food, or peace of mind, what legal relief can he seek?

It is also worth noting the performative constitutionalism that plagues Nigeria’s legislative process. Lawmakers gather to amend the Constitution every four years like surgeons with blunt scalpels. They debate the minutiae of electoral timelines, federal character quotas, and party primaries. But no one rises to demand justiciability for Chapter II. No one proposes constitutional protections for internally displaced persons. No one fights to enshrine the right to a living wage. They adjust the frame while the house is on fire.

In the final analysis, a Constitution that cannot be felt in the body of the poor, in the belly of the child, in the safety of the mother, and in the labour of the working man, is a document not of power but of pretense. A parchment without protection. A creed without consequence.

Yet, it is not too late. What is written may still be made flesh. But first, we must acknowledge the gap. We must look the failure in the face and name it for what it is: a breach of trust, a betrayal of covenant, a blood-soaked irony. For the Constitution, like the prophets of old, still cries out: “Will you honour me with your lips and deny me with your deeds?” The answer, for now is a crass denial of deeds.

HOW INEQUALITY BREEDS VIOLENCE

Poverty is not just a condition; it is an accelerant of conflict. There is a direct and growing body of empirical evidence linking economic inequality with national insecurity. A 2024 study revealed that in Benue State, each 1% rise in insecurity led to a 0.211% drop in crop production and a 0.311% drop in livestock output. This data translates into a disturbing truth: insecurity is not only the consequence of poverty it is its co-creator. In rural communities, farmers flee their land not because of market pressures, but because of fear of bandits, herdsmen, and armed militias who now prowl agricultural heartlands, maiming, killing, raping and burning.

In the same year, Reuters reported that over 31 million Nigerians nearly 15% of the population were pushed into acute food insecurity, largely due to a combination of rising prices, mass displacement, and insecurity in farming regions. Nigeria, once a net food exporter, is now reliant on imports for survival. This is not just an economic regression; it is a national humiliation, a betrayal of the very right to life itself.

Without access to these basic social services, rights such as freedom of expression, political participation, and even the right to vote become illusory. The weaponization of poverty in Nigeria is not simply an unfortunate byproduct of mismanagement. It is a system. A structure. A design. It is the very architecture of modern power. In this architecture, deprivation is used to secure obedience, silence dissent, and eliminate competition. The economically excluded are not merely poor they are disempowered, voiceless, and disposable. That is the Stalin philosophy: impoverish and demean the people and their obedience is guaranteed in the form of Stockholm Syndrome.

This is a direct affront to the Constitution, which promises in its Preamble to promote “the welfare of the people.” It is a betrayal of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified by Nigeria, which enshrines the right of all peoples to the satisfaction of economic, social and cultural rights essential to development (Article 22). It is a violation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, especially Goal 1 (No Poverty) and Goal 10 (Reduced Inequality).

SYSTEMIC LAPSES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT: THE HIDDEN ENGINE OF INSECURITY AND RIGHTS EROSION

The crisis of insecurity in Nigeria cannot be understood without confronting the institutional collapse of its law enforcement architecture. While terrorism, banditry and economic collapse dominate headlines, these phenomena are but symptoms; the underlying illness is a chronic and systemic failure of the bodies meant to enforce the law. This failure is not simply operational, a matter of inadequate equipment or insufficient manpower, it is structural, political, and cultural. It shapes the relationship between the citizen and the State, corrodes the rule of law, and serves as the silent engine powering the erosion of civil liberties and the normalization of impunity.

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE VS. INSTITUTIONAL REALITY

Under Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) is established “for the maintenance of law and order, and for the protection of lives and property.” Supplementary security agencies such as the Department of State Services (DSS), Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and specialized military units exist to support this mandate. In theory, these agencies stand as the custodians of safety and justice, sworn to uphold both constitutional rights and statutory law.

In practice however, these institutions are often the very conduit pipes through which laws are brazenly violated. The gulf between the constitutional ideal and the operational reality is vast. A system intended to serve the people now often serves power, wealth and political expediency against the very people. The principle of equality before the law has been replaced by a hierarchy of enforcement, where the reach and rigour of the law depend on the identity of the suspect.

POLITICIZATION AND WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

One of the most corrosive dynamics in Nigerian policing is its politicization. Rather than functioning as neutral enforcers of the law, security agencies are frequently deployed as instruments of partisan advantage. Opposition protests are met with rapid deployment of armed police, teargas and mass arrests. In contrast, political rallies for ruling party figures proceed with minimal security interference, but with reinforced security protection even when they breach public safety and order regulations.

This political double standard is not a matter of perception alone; it is reality evidenced by documented patterns. During the 2019 and 2023 general elections, numerous observers including the Transition Monitoring Group and international missions reported instances where law enforcement personnel either failed to intervene during ballot snatching episodes, or were directly complicit. Police units habitually provide cover for armed gangs removing election materials. In many of such cases, no officers have been disciplined, further embedding the perception that law enforcement loyalty is to political patrons, not the law or the country.

The politicization extends beyond elections. Journalists investigating corruption or security failings have been arrested and detained under dubious charges, often invoking broadly worded laws such as the Cybercrimes Act or Terrorism Prevention Act. Meanwhile, known political figures implicated in large-scale embezzlement routinely enjoy “soft landing” agreements or indefinite delays in prosecution.

CORRUPTION AS OPERATIONAL CULTURE

Corruption within Nigerian law enforcement is neither sporadic nor isolated; it is systemic. The 2019 Global corruption Barometer for Africa found that Nigerians rate the police the most corrupt institution in the country. Half of those surveyed reported paying a bribe to the police in the previous 12 months.

This corruption operates at multiple levels. At street level, officers extort motorists at checkpoints, detain individuals without charge to compel “bail” payments, and demand fees before registering complaints. At higher levels, investigators may bury case files in exchange for cash; prosecutors may dilute charges; and senior officers may shield their subordinates from accountability if they share in illicit proceeds.

Even operational deployments are shaped by rent-seeking. Officers are routinely assigned to guard private residences, businesses and political figures for unofficial payments, leaving ordinary citizens with limited police presence in their communities. This practice distorts the deployment of resources, creating a policing landscape where protection is essentially commodified.

OPERATIONAL WEAKNESSES AND STRUCTURAL MISMANAGEMENT

Nigeria’s police-to-population ratio remains alarmingly low. With about 371,800 officers serving a population of over 236 million people, the country is well below the United Nations’ recommended benchmark of 222 officers per 100,000 people. This manpower gap severely hampers the Force’s capacity to tackle crime, especially in volatile areas plagued by insurgency and communal violence. To make matters worse, many of the limited officers available are deployed to safeguard high-profile politicians and elites rather than serving the broader public. In rural communities, especially in conflict-affected northern states, residents report waiting hours, sometimes days, for police to respond to distress calls, if they ever respond at all. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Money and corruption are ruining the land, crooked politicians betray the working man, pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep, and we’re tired of hearing promises that we know they’ll never keep”. (Ray Davies).

Continue Reading

Trending