Police and the Criminalization of Civil Disputes

A Landmark Judgment on Police Misconduct and Civil Rights

The judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Lagos was unambiguous. It ruled that the constitutional right to life of a young medical sales representative, Omokhinyema Okubo, had been violated after he died in police custody. The court awarded N100 million in damages against the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, a senior police officer, and a pharmaceutical company whose complaint led to the deceased’s arrest.

This decision goes beyond the financial compensation provided to Okubo’s family. It serves as a reminder of an ongoing issue within Nigeria’s criminal justice system: the misuse of police powers in disputes that should be resolved through civil courts. The case raises important questions about the boundaries between employment disagreements and criminal investigations.

When Does an Employment Dispute Become a Criminal Matter?

At what point does an employment disagreement transition into a criminal investigation? When should the police decline a complaint if the dispute is purely contractual rather than criminal? What responsibility do complainants bear when they invoke the criminal justice system for a private grievance?

These are complex but necessary questions that Nigerian courts have grappled with for decades. According to the evidence accepted by the court, Okubo, an employee of Exus Pharmaceutical (Nig.) Ltd, was summoned to the company’s Lagos office in July 2023 over an alleged shortfall in sales proceeds before being handed over to police officers.

His father, a retired Commissioner of Police, claimed that his son was detained, tortured, denied food and medical attention, and later died in police custody at Ketu-Epe Police Station.

While Exus Pharmaceutical and one of its officials challenged the suit on procedural grounds, the police authorities did not file a defense or contest the allegations during the proceedings.

The Court’s Findings and Legal Implications

Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala found that the evidence established that the deceased died while in police custody and that the respondents failed to justify the circumstances surrounding his death. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the judgment was not the amount awarded but the court’s treatment of the dispute that preceded the arrest.

The court held that the company should have pursued available contractual remedies instead of involving the police in what it described as a civil debt dispute. It further concluded that the company and its manager were jointly liable alongside the police authorities for their role in the arrest and detention of the deceased.

This finding aligns with a long-standing principle in Nigerian jurisprudence. For over two decades, appellate courts have consistently held that the police do not have the legal authority to act as debt collectors or enforce private contractual obligations. Courts have repeatedly warned that criminal processes must not be used as tools of commercial pressure unless there is a clear criminal offense.

The Legal Precedent Set by Previous Cases

Several landmark cases have reinforced this principle. In McLaren v. Jennings, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the police have no legal mandate to recover debts or resolve purely civil disputes. Similar principles have been reiterated in decisions such as Oceanic Securities International Ltd v. Balogun and other appellate rulings dealing with the misuse of police powers in commercial disagreements.

Courts have never suggested that employers are prohibited from reporting genuine criminal conduct to the police. Allegations of theft, fraud, forgery, obtaining by false pretences, or criminal breach of trust remain matters properly investigated by law enforcement agencies where credible facts disclose the commission of an offence.

What the courts have consistently discouraged is the tendency to present ordinary contractual disagreements, debt claims, or employment disputes as criminal matters simply because criminal investigation appears quicker or more coercive than civil litigation.

The Responsibility of the State and Complainants

Every arrest immediately engages fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the rights to dignity, personal liberty, and fair hearing. Once an individual is taken into lawful custody, the State assumes responsibility for that person’s safety, welfare, and wellbeing. That responsibility does not diminish because the person is under investigation.

Justice Kala’s judgment was particularly critical of what occurred after the deceased entered police custody. The court noted the absence of evidence of a proper criminal investigation into the death, a coroner’s inquest, or credible autopsy findings capable of explaining how a person taken into custody alive subsequently died while under the control of law enforcement officers.

Two Distinct Issues Addressed by the Judgment

The judgment speaks to two distinct issues. The first concerns accountability for deaths occurring in state custody. The second involves the increasing legal exposure faced not only by law enforcement agencies but also by private complainants who instigate police intervention in disputes that may ultimately be found to be civil in nature.

In recent years, Nigerian courts have shown a growing willingness to impose liability on complainants where evidence establishes that they actively procured unlawful arrest, detention, or other violations of fundamental rights. The rationale is straightforward: a private citizen cannot escape responsibility where they knowingly set in motion an unlawful process that results in the infringement of another person’s constitutional rights.

Implications for Employers and Businesses

This development carries important implications for employers and businesses. Internal financial discrepancies, inventory shortages, and contractual disagreements often require careful legal assessment before any report is made to law enforcement agencies. Where the facts disclose criminality, the police have both the authority and the duty to investigate. Where they do not, civil remedies remain the appropriate course.

Equally significant is the responsibility resting on police officers themselves. The Police Act defines the functions of the Nigeria Police Force in relation to crime prevention, investigation, law enforcement, and public safety. Courts have consistently interpreted those statutory powers as excluding the enforcement of private contracts or the recovery of debts between citizens.

A Reinforcement of Constitutional Principles

Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala’s judgment will almost certainly be remembered for the N100 million damages awarded to the family of Omokhinyema Okubo. Its lasting significance, however, may lie elsewhere. It reinforces a constitutional principle that Nigerian courts have affirmed repeatedly for decades: the coercive powers of the State must be exercised only for the prevention and investigation of crime, never as a substitute for lawful civil process.