BLENDING LAW AND CIVIC EDUCATION TO EMPOWER CITIZENS AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER
INTRODUCTION
Across Nigeria and many other societies, encounters with uniformed security agents often provoke fear rather than confidence. Police officers, soldiers, and civil defence personnel are constitutionally empowered to protect lives, property, and national security, yet their actions are frequently misunderstood, abused, or outright misapplied. This paper provides a clear, practical, and empowering explanation of what these agencies can legally do and what they absolutely cannot do.
Drawing on constitutional provisions, statutes, court decisions, and the teachings of legal scholars and security experts from Nigeria, Africa, Europe, Asia, and America, this work aims to transform citizens from helpless victims into informed participants in civic life. Knowledge, as Justice Oputa famously noted, is the first defence against tyranny (Oputa, 1996).
DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF STATE SECURITY POWERS
Security agencies derive their powers strictly from law, not from uniforms, weapons, or personal authority. In Nigeria, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is supreme and binds all authorities and persons (Section 1(1)). The police, armed forces, and civil defence operate within specific legal boundaries defined by statutes such as the Police Act 2020, the Armed Forces Act, and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act 2003. Legal scholar A.V. Dicey’s theory of the rule of law emphasizes that no person or authority is above the law, including the state itself (Dicey, 1959).
THE NIGERIA POLICE FORCE: LEGAL POWERS AND LIMITS
The Nigeria Police Force is constitutionally established under Section 214 of the Constitution and primarily tasked with the prevention and detection of crime, apprehension of offenders, and preservation of law and order. Under the Police Act 2020, police officers may arrest persons reasonably suspected of committing an offence, but such arrest must be based on reasonable suspicion, not personal dislike or financial inducement (Police Act, s.38). Courts have consistently held that arrest without reasonable suspicion is unlawful (McLaren v. Jennings, 2003).
However, police officers cannot arrest a person for a purely civil matter such as debt recovery or breach of contract. The Court of Appeal in Oceanic Securities Int’l Ltd v. Balogun (2012) condemned the use of police to intimidate debtors, describing it as an abuse of power. Nigerian legal commentator Femi Falana, SAN, argues that when police involve themselves in civil disputes, they transform from law enforcers into instruments of oppression (Falana, 2014).
POLICE POWERS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Police officers may search persons, vehicles, or premises only in accordance with the law. Section 144 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) requires a search warrant issued by a magistrate or judge, except in limited circumstances such as hot pursuit or imminent danger. Random stop-and-search operations without reasonable suspicion violate the constitutional right to privacy under Section 37 of the Constitution. Justice Niki Tobi emphasized that fundamental rights are not decorative provisions but enforceable guarantees (Tobi, 2006).
Police officers cannot seize phones, laptops, or vehicles without lawful justification. In Eze v. State (2018), the court held that seizure of personal property without due process constitutes a violation of property rights under Section 44 of the Constitution.
THE NIGERIAN ARMY: ROLE, POWERS, AND RESTRICTIONS
The Nigerian Army is established under Section 217 of the Constitution and exists primarily to defend Nigeria from external aggression and maintain territorial integrity. Soldiers are not trained or empowered to perform routine policing duties. Their deployment in internal security operations is constitutionally permissible only when civil authorities request assistance, and even then, their actions remain subject to civil law (A.G. Federation v. Abubakar, 2007).
Soldiers cannot arrest civilians for ordinary crimes, extort money at checkpoints, or assault citizens. The Supreme Court in Civil Liberties Organisation v. Chief of Army Staff (2003) held that military personnel who violate civilians’ rights can be held personally and institutionally liable. International human rights scholar Philip Alston notes that militarizing law enforcement often escalates abuse rather than security (Alston, 2015).
SOLDIERS AND CHECKPOINTS
While soldiers may man checkpoints during joint operations, they have no authority to demand vehicle documents, conduct routine searches, or collect fines. Such actions remain within the exclusive domain of the police and relevant regulatory agencies. Retired Nigerian General Martin Agwai has publicly stated that soldiers at checkpoints are meant for deterrence, not revenue generation or harassment (Agwai, 2012).
NIGERIA SECURITY AND CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS: POWERS AND LIMITS
The NSCDC is established by statute to protect critical national assets, prevent vandalism, and assist in maintaining public order. Under the NSCDC Act, corps members may arrest suspects involved in offences relating to their mandate, but they cannot assume the general powers of the police. Legal analyst Yemi Osinbajo (before becoming Vice President) argued that statutory agencies must not exceed the boundaries of their enabling laws, as doing so renders their actions unconstitutional (Osinbajo, 2008).
Civil defence officers cannot detain citizens indefinitely, torture suspects, or demand money for bail. Section 35 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty and prescribes strict timelines for detention. Any detention beyond 24 or 48 hours without court order is unlawful, regardless of the agency involved.
WHAT NONE OF THEM CAN DO: UNIVERSAL LIMITS
No security agent can torture, assault, or subject a citizen to degrading treatment. Section 34 of the Constitution and the Anti-Torture Act 2017 absolutely prohibit torture. The United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which Nigeria is a party, reinforces this prohibition (UN, 1984). Criminologist Cesare Beccaria argued centuries ago that torture produces fear, not justice, and destroys the moral authority of the state (Beccaria, 1764).
No security agent can demand money on the road, at stations, or at checkpoints. Such acts constitute extortion and abuse of office under the Criminal Code and Penal Code. Transparency International consistently ranks extortion by law enforcement as a major driver of public distrust (TI, 2022).
No agency can enforce civil debts, landlord-tenant disputes, or marital disagreements. Courts have repeatedly warned against turning security agencies into private collection tools for the powerful (Balogun v. Ojukwu, 1986).
CITIZENS’ RIGHTS DURING ENCOUNTERS WITH SECURITY AGENTS
Citizens have the right to remain silent except as required by law, the right to know the reason for arrest, and the right to consult a lawyer. Section 36 of the Constitution guarantees fair hearing, while the ACJA mandates humane treatment of suspects. American jurist Clarence Thomas notes that rights are most meaningful not in textbooks but during encounters with power (Thomas, 2002).
Citizens also have the right to record police interactions, provided it does not obstruct lawful duties. Courts in multiple jurisdictions recognize recording as part of freedom of expression and accountability (ACLU v. Alvarez, 2012).
WHY ABUSE OF POWER PERSISTS
Abuse thrives where ignorance meets impunity. Many citizens do not know their rights, and many officers assume citizens do not know them. Sociologist Max Weber warned that authority without accountability degenerates into domination (Weber, 1947). In Nigeria, weak internal discipline and delayed prosecution of erring officers reinforce a culture of excess (CLEEN Foundation, 2020).
THE POWER OF CIVIC EDUCATION
Civic education demystifies uniforms and restores balance between authority and liberty. Ghanaian legal scholar Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu argues that an informed citizenry is the most effective check on state abuse (Mensa-Bonsu, 2010). When people know the law, they negotiate power differently, calmly but firmly.
CONCLUSION
Police officers, soldiers, and civil defence personnel are servants of the law, not masters of citizens. Their powers are real but limited; their uniforms confer responsibility, not superiority. A society where citizens understand these limits is harder to intimidate and easier to govern justly. Empowerment begins with knowledge, and knowledge transforms fear into confidence. As Justice Kayode Eso aptly stated, “The rule of law is not for the timid; it is for those who know their rights and insist on them” (Eso, 1991).
REFERENCES
Achebe, C. (1983). The trouble with Nigeria. Heinemann.
Agwai, M. (2012). Civil-military relations in Nigeria. Nigerian Defence Review, 4(1), 22–35.
Alston, P. (2015). Human rights and law enforcement. Oxford University Press.
Beccaria, C. (1764). On crimes and punishments.
CLEEN Foundation. (2020). Police accountability in Nigeria.
Dicey, A. V. (1959). Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution. Macmillan.
Falana, F. (2014). Fundamental rights enforcement in Nigeria. Legal Text Publishing.
Mensa-Bonsu, H. (2010). Constitutionalism and civic education in Africa. African Law Review, 12(2), 45–63.
Oputa, C. J. (1996). Human rights in a democratic society.
Osinbajo, Y. (2008). Statutory powers and constitutional limits. Nigerian Juridical Review, 7, 1–18.
Transparency International. (2022). Corruption perceptions index.
United Nations. (1984). Convention against torture.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization.
Relevant Nigerian cases: Balogun v. Ojukwu (1986); Oceanic Securities v. Balogun (2012); CLO v. Chief of Army Staff (2003); Eze v. State (2018).
Dr. Chris Nwachukwu.
