Protector Turned Predator: Police Brutality In Nigeria, The Rise Of Democide? -By Tope Shola Akinyetun

The extrajudicial killings and brutality by security agents, especially the police have in recent times become prevalent in various parts of the world. This development, without prejudice to the past, has seen an increase in the killing of civilians by government officers with impunity – suggesting connivance or conspiracy. Police brutality is not peculiar to Nigeria or Africa, but remains a global phenomenon. On May 26 2020, a widespread protest was sparked in Minneapolis, USA following the unjust and extrajudicial killing of George Floyd by a group of four police officers. The protests dubbed George Floyd protests which started as a conventional protest spiralled into civil disobedience in the city with resonating effect in major cities around the world with an equaling reverberating Black Lives Matter (BLM) mantra. For emphasis, the BLM chant dates back to 2013 when Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager was reported killed by a police officer in Florida, USA. This is an indication that police brutality and extrajudicial killing have a long and tortuous history, even in an advanced society like the US.

Police brutality is also widespread in countries like the Philippines, India, Kenya and Nigeria. The police in India assume a supererogatory role and exercise unreserved powers which results in the brutality of the citizens. Meanwhile in Nigeria, the disenchantment with police impunity and increase in brutality culminated in the October 2020 nationwide protests for the disbandment of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS); an arm of the police accused of wanton abuse and incessant brutality. As Amnesty International (2020) notes, a total of 82 youths were brutalized by SARS between January 2017 and May 2020. Meanwhile, Perouse de Montclos (2014) claims that the police were responsible for the death of 5851 persons between 2006 and 2014 in the conflict situations it intervened.

To be sure, police brutality in Nigeria has become a front-burner issue in the country’s sociopolitical discourse. This is not unconnected with the fact that the police have been accused of promoting a ‘trigger-happy culture’ through its unbridled predisposition to extralegal killings, human rights violations, abuse, extortion, intimidation, harassment, corruption and brutality – among others. It is almost as if the institution exists mainly to promote societal inanities. However, on the contrary, the Nigerian police are authorized by the Police Act (1990) to prevent crime, preserve law and order, protect life and property as well as enforce laws and regulations. This power is also guaranteed under Section 214 of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution (as amended). True to its mandate as a security agency, the police has been instrumental in detecting and fighting crime, investigating and prosecuting violent criminals and protecting life and property. However, in the course of carrying out this sacred duty, the police adopt extralegal and vicious means which are in stark contrast to their duty as a protector but present it as a predator! Meanwhile, the impunity with which brutality is committed and the little or no sanction it attracts is suggestive of the rise of democide.

Democide, a concept credited to the American political scientist Rudolph Rummel, describes “the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command” (Barbara, 2017). This concept encompasses the various deaths attributable to the government and its agents. This includes genocide, politicide, mass murder, classicide, civil war killings, government-induced famine and forced labour, extrajudicial killings, and by extension, police brutality. This is because the police as an agent of the government is believed to be acting on the instructions and powers conferred on it by the government. Rummel further argues that democide covers any murder of a person or people by any government (and its agents). In this regard, therefore, the killings by Nigerian police officers without disciplinary action from the government can be regarded as democide.

Concepts

According to Akinyetun (2021), police brutality refers to the indiscriminate use of weapons by a police officer to violate and abuse unharmed persons thus resulting in the loss of life, injury, deprivation and discrimination. It describes the use of firearms against the regulations of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms which prescribes the use of firearms as the last option when other options for de-escalating conflict fails. When analyzed through this lens, the majority of the killings in Nigeria by the police are outside the ‘conflict’ situation and can therefore be categorized as police brutality.

Meanwhile, democide is defined by Rummel as the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Rummel offers the concept of democide as an analogy for public murder by government agents acting authoritatively. It is the intentional killing of an unarmed person or people by a government or its institution. The operational word here is ‘intentional’ which widens the scope of the concept beyond massacre, terror, politicide, genocide or mass murder.

Police brutality in Nigeria

There are divergent views on the causes of police brutality in Nigeria. The various standpoints include the organizational structure of the police, legitimacy and procedural justice, and colonial experience. The organization-based viewpoint of police brutality rejects the attribution of the phenomenon to sociological (social dynamics) and psychological (personality trait) factors. Rather, it stresses that organizational factors such as the structure of the police and incentives play major roles in police behaviour. This argument is hinged on the assumption that organizational structure is a correlate of work-related behaviours. Viewed from this lens, the Nigerian police have been accused of suffering from a lack of administrative control, poor enforcement of internal rules, poor oversight, lack of investigative infrastructure, poor training, poor incentives, corruption and poor working conditions. These organization-related challenges when left unchecked increases work-related frustration and the occurrence of anti-social practices which engenders counterproductive work behaviours such as abuse of authority and brutality.

Meanwhile, the viewpoint on legitimacy and procedural justice argues that the police acquire legitimacy through the citizens’ recognition of its authority of justice in enforcing rules. That is, the ability of the police to justly manage conflict and distribute justice fairly increases its legitimacy. This is reinforced by the trust and confidence the people repose in the police due to their moral actions. Therefore, to promote legitimacy, the police must be adjudged to be just, fair, impartial, neutral, trustworthy and respectful. Without these, the police lose their legitimacy and run the risk of being disobeyed, detested and defied. When analyzed from this angle, the citizens are cynical of many Nigerian police officers due to their lack of fairness, truth, trustworthiness and justice. The police have therefore lost legitimacy and public support which makes it adopt force in the discharge of its duties to command respect and cooperation from the citizens. Meanwhile, with this use of force to replace legitimacy, the police continue to reinvent itself as a predator.

There is yet another viewpoint that blames the police’s use of force and penchant for brutality and viciousness on its colonial experience. The argument has it that the creation of the police in the colonial era to oppress dissidents of colonial rule and spread colonial influence made the police brutish whilst promoting high-handedness and abuse. This colonial orientation of oppression, repression, suppression and brutality was passed down to the independence era where the police largely served as appendages of the government to crush opposition and carry out punitive assignments. More so, the police at independence were still tied to the apron string of the Crown until the country’s Republican status in 1963. Meanwhile, the police continued with its culture of violence and brutality during the military interregnum and civilian rule.

The role of legal instruments in Police brutality in Nigeria

There is an extensive discussion on the incidence of police brutality in Nigeria, but little attention has been paid to how the police have sustained the culture of impunity and brutality. The effort is made here to draw our attention to the organizational legal rules which authorize the police to use force in dealing with a criminal suspect. Such rules are the Police Act 1990 and Force Order 237 which enables a police officer to arrest a suspect without a warrant and to apply force during the arrest if the suspect attempts to escape arrest from custody. These rules have been taken advantage of by the police to perpetuate crime and sustain brutality.

Force Order 237 (reviewed 2019) provide guidance on the use of force and firearms by police officers. Sub-section 2.3, Part C, Section 2 of Order 237 “permits the use of force to prevent a suspect escaping”. It reads:

If the arrest of the suspect is for perpetrating a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, then, the Police Officer may use lethal force ‘if he/she cannot by any means otherwise’ to arrest a suspect escaping from lawful custody, provided the escapee constitutes an imminent threat of death or serious injury. This is extremely important (p. 14).

Meanwhile, Section D contains the power to use force in preventing escape. It says:

Here a Police Officer or any other person may use such force which is, on reasonable (proportional) grounds necessary to prevent the escape or rescue, including, provided the offence for which the person has been arrested is one for which a power of arrest without a warrant exists.

Again, lethal force is only acceptable to protect against the imminent threat of serious injury or death posed by the escapee (p.15).

The above-quoted portions of the Order empower the police to use lethal force when a suspect attempts to escape. The golden question is: what counts as lethal force and how do we ascertain that a suspect truly attempts to escape or resist arrest? These sections provide the perfect cover for a police officer to abuse and brutalize a suspect on the grounds of attempting to escape arrest.

Rise of Democide?

In his conception of democide, Rummel argues that it is any action by a government (or its institution such as the police):

1. designed to kill or cause the death of people.
2. that cause death through intentional disregard for life.
3. involving government or authoritative actions by government officials, including the police, military, or secret service; or such non-governmental actions.

The aforementioned conditions for democide find a place in the context of police brutality in Nigeria. The actions of officers of the NPF such as torture, abuse, and the indiscriminate use of force against citizens during protests have resulted in the loss of life and extrajudicial killings. As Akinyetun argues, the police (particularly SARS) have been accused of disregarding human life by subjecting suspects to inhumane and life-threatening conditions and for operating illegal detention centres where detainees are summarily executed.

These action by the police is a pointer to the rise in democide in Nigeria where citizens and protesters are brutalized (often resulting in death) for opposing the government; where the operation of deadly prisons and the crimes of rape, murder, torture, beatings and extrajudicial killings are perpetuated is sustained. Finally, considering that Rummel’s idea of democide includes military actions taken against unarmed civilians during a protest, it is pertinent to ask: In this era of democide in Nigeria?