Protection and Redress for Victims of Crime in Nigeria: an Appraisal of the Roles of the Police and the Court
CHAPTER ONE
Objectives of the Study
The main aim of this study is to appraise the roles of the police and court in the protection and redress for victims of crime in Nigeria. While its objectives are:
- To ascertain the legality and constitutionality, or otherwise, of injunctive orders against police investigative processes.
- To examine the adverse impacts of premature release on bail of suspects on the victims of crime, the criminal justice system and the society at large.
- To examine the rights of victims of crime.
- To examine comparatively the use of police powers of arrest and detention and the treatment and handling of arrested persons in United Kingdom, the United States, India and Nigeria
- To examine international, regional and national legislation on protection and redress for adults and children victims of crime and
- To make appropriate recommendations.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The Genesis of Doing Justice to Victims of Crime
The first recorded act of doing justice to a victim of crime was that done by the Almighty God Himself to Cain in the Garden of Eden for the brutal murder of his brother Abel.[1] God, after a thorough investigation of the crime, pronounced Cain’s punishments thus, “And now art thou cursed from the earth … when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yielded unto thee her strength, a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth”.[2] This singular act performed by God personally, gives us the impetus to assert that it was, and it still is, God’s intendment that redress and justice to innocent victims of crime be given prominence in every justice process.
Subsequently, in one of the earliest Ancient Codes, the Code of Hammurabi, written and promulgated by King Hammurabi of Babylon, “The protection of the weak from the powerful, the poor from the rich and all classes of Babylonian society, including women and slaves became emphasized”.[3] The Code was rightly described, “As possibly the first victims’ rights’ statute, and the earliest efforts at redressing victims of crime and doing justice to them”. For instance, the Code prescribed that, “If a man had been robbed by highway robbers, the victim had only to state on oath what he had lost, and the governor was obligated to restore to to him what he had lost”.[4] The above depicts how victims of crime were protected and redressed under the code, which became one of the first attempts at establishing a written code of conduct.[5] It symbolised, not only, “The emergence of justice in the minds of men, but also man’s rise above ignorance and barbarism toward the peaceful and just societies which is still being pursued today”.
During the medieval era, the Mosaic Code, which probably began several centuries B.C.E, was promulgated.[7] Urbahns has described the Code as, “Civil Laws in the Old Testament given by God to Moses”. He said the code consisted of a total of 613 commands, comprising 365 negative, and 248 positive ones. According to Keathly, the code was divided into three parts or sections, namely the moral, the social and the ceremonial,[8] and covered every possible area of the life of the then Israel.[9] The Code prohibited murder, perjury and theft.[10] It was followed by the, “Twelve Tables” in 450 BC;[11] itwas divided into twelve sections containing basic rules for the conduct of families, religious and economic life.[12] Under section 2 of Table VIII, the law enjoined that, “A victim of disfigurement must be compensated by the perpetrator through retaliation and or payment of stated amount”.
In 1066, after the Norman conquest of England, Stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by decided law”), was introduced and implemented. By its virtue, Royal administrators were appointed to serve as judges using local custom and rules of conduct as guide. This development is reported to have had extensive effect on modern American Criminal Law.[13] Other early codes and laws include the Common Law which was developed during the middle ages. The Common Law is said to form the basis for much of present-day American legal system, and the legal systems of most former Anglophone colonised countries.[14] In the Eleventh Century, King Edward the Confessor, proclaimed it as the, “law of the land”. Its procedure which initially involved judges using unwritten legal precedents to decide cases, eventually led to courts’ decisions being recorded for future use, and has now become one of the most important aspects of current American Law.
CHAPTER THREE
THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE QUEST FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Charter of the League of Nations
Undoubtedly, the human rights movement is largely a product of the horrors of World War II – “Its rise, development and elaboration cannot be understood without resort to the abominations which European States and their agents committed during that war”.[1] According to Leary the, “The gruesome and ghastly violations of the rights of designated racial groups committed by Nazi Germany, which stunned and traumatised the international community, were the primary impulsion for the development of an international system for the protection of universal human rights”.[2] The United Nations therefore, resolved to formulate a means that, “Would hold the perpetrators of such reprehensible and ruthless actions accountable for them”, and also enhance and facilitate the realisation of one of her main her objectives; “The promotion of international peace and security, promotion of respect for human and fundamental rights and ensuring that future generation would be free from war”.
The United Nations thus, inaugurated an eighteen-member multi-national Human Rights Commission, [3] with, “The sole objective to draw up a set of principles that all member states could pledge to implement”.[4] Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed the chairperson of the Commission which membership among others included John Humphrey and Rene Cassin, both lawyers.[5] The presence of these two in the Commission, according to Glendon, “Assured that the Declaration would be an integrated text whose parts were related to one another, and whose interpretation was meant to be guided by the general principles contained in its preamble and concluded sections”.[6] Finally, the Commission came out with a draft copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE POLICE, COURTS: PROTECTION AND REDRESS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME IN NIGERIA
The Origin of the Police and Policing in Nigeria
According to Bohm and Haley, “Before the advent of organised policing, justice was primarily a private matter characterised by revenge and retribution everywhere in the then known world”.[1] Consequently, “Disputes were often settled by blood feuds in which families would wage war on each other”.[2] “Victims were responsible to pursue and apprehend the perpetrators of crime without help from either the King or his agents”. In early Babylon, policing was undertaken by either military or quasi-military organisations that developed from community associations or groups in which citizens banded together for mutual protection.[3] They were mainly concerned with keeping public order and enforcing religious or political mandates of those in authority.[4] One of the earliest forms of organised policing allegedly emerged in Rome under the reign of Emperor Augustus.[5]
In the pre-colonial epoch, the different cultural-nations that constitute the present Nigeria had their traditional methods of crime prevention.[6] “Generally, the tasks of crime prevention were the responsibility of select male adults in the community”.[7] Under the traditional adjudicatory systems, disputes between members of the community, and or different communities were resolved by elders, chiefs and paramount chiefs of the communities concerned.[8] The sole aim of the traditional adjudication process was the, “Compensation or restitution of the victim, reconciliation of the litigants and the rehabilitation of the wrongdoer, in order to maintain societal equilibrium”.[9] There was no specialised agency for law enforcement as such was considered unnecessary; rather select adult male members of secret cults were used for the purpose. This development, it is observed, was not different from what prevailed in the medieval societies; under “hue and cry” where all adult males were, “obliged to pursue and apprehend any wrongdoer whenever the alarm was raised”.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
In the course of this research,[1] a seemingly lack of interest and concern in the compensation and or restitution of victims of crime in Africa and in Nigeria particularly, has been revealed. Also revealed is that, though law enforcement officers are the first point of contact after crime commission, they often do not treat victims with compassion and respect. Today, fifty years after England, and several years after some other European states and the United States of America, had enacted specific legislations for the protection and redress for victims of crime, African states are yet to follow suit. That there are huge volumes of international, regional and national instruments;[2] including international, regional, national agencies[3] and non-governmental organisations for the protection of victims of abuse of power, is doubtless.[4] The civil Society groups[5] and human rights’ activists[6] are among the groups that strenuously strive for the protection and redress for victims of abuse of power. In Africa, and in Nigeria in particular, the victim’s relevance in the criminal justice process, begins and ends with testifying for the prosecution[7] when and if ever the matter gets to that stage.
Conclusions
In order to properly, tackle the issue of constitutionality or otherwise of courts’ disruption of criminal investigative processes, a recourse is made to the positions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the issue. In several decisions the Superior Courts have deprecated the proclivity of the court below’s to grant indiscriminate injunctive orders to disrupt public functions and prohibit public functionaries from performing their constitutional duties. The Court of Appeal even asserted that it is an inter-meddling with the functions of another arm of government. It is therefore affirmed that meddling in criminal investigative processes is both unconstitutional and illegal.
Recommendations
In view of the global interest and concern, particularly in Europe, America and at the United Nations, in the “protection and redress for victims of crime”, obvious in their constitutional provisions, coupled with the substantial number of victims-friendly Statutes, Declarations, Resolutions and Recommendations, specially promulgated for the welfare and protection of victims, it is recommended that urgent and appropriate steps be put in place, in Africa, and in Nigeria particularly in order:
- To formulate and promulgate of a National Policy on Compensation, Restitution and Remedies for Victims of Crime at the Federal level.
- To establish, both at the Federal and State Levels, Victims of Crime Compensation’s Commissions or Boards, to be saddled with the responsibility of identification, compensation, or restitution of genuine victims of crime. Such Boards or Commissions when established should be chaired at the Federal level by a Retired Chief Justice of Nigeria or such other eminent persons with proven integrity. And at the State Level, by a retired judge or retired Justice of the Supreme Court, as the case may be.
REFERENCES
- Abati, R. (2008). The Role of the Media in Enhancing Police Efficiency. Paper presented at the Police Service Commission Retreat at Osun State August 19.
- Achebe, C. (1958). Things Fall Apart. London: Heinemann Educational Books, p. 87.
- Achebe, C. (2012). There was a Country – A Personal History of Biafra. New York: Penguin Books, p. 50.
- Adebayo, P. F. & Ojo, E. E. O. (2009). The Challenges of Effective Policing as Measures of Controlling the Phenomenon of Police Corruption in Nigeria Today. International NGO Journal, 4 (3): pp. 71-75. Available at http://www.academicjournal.org/INGO, accessed 26 November 2013.
- Adebola, I.O.A. (1990). Criminal Justice: Restitution Compensation and Victims’ Remedies. In: Adetiba S. (Ed.), Compensation and Remedies for Victims of Crime in Nigeria. Lagos: Federal Minisrty of Justice, pp. 233-239.
- Aderaunmo, A. (2009). Nigerian Judiciary: A Citadel of Corrupt Minds. Available at http://www.adeniold.wordpress.com/2009/12/18, accessed 31 December 2013
- Adetiba, S. (1990). Compensation and Remedies for Victims of Crime in Nigeria. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Justice, p. (xiii).
- Adewoye, A. (1977). The Legal Profession in Nigeria 1865 – 1962. Ibadan: Longmans, p.15
- Adeyemi, A. A. (1990). Towards Victim Remedy in Criminal Justice Administration in Nigeria. In: Adetiba S. (Ed.), Compensation and Remedies for Victims of Crime in Nigeria. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Justice, pp.291-326.
