Introduction

Land disputes in Nigeria has increasingly exposed a tension between the legitimate exercise of powers and the unlawful use of state authority to advance private interest. Where competing claims to land arise, parties have to resort to police intervention to secure possession, intermediate opponents or compel compliance with disputed claims. The power to investigate crimes does not confer judicial authority to determine ownership of land, enforce private agreements or dispossess individual without lawful authority.

The issue is not whether the police should investigate crimes nor is it whether the property owners deserve protection against trespass, fraud, intimidation and unlawful entry but the real question is whether the police can lawfully use their investigative and coercive powers to accomplish what only a competent court can determine in relation to the legal rights of competing claimants to land.

The Legal Framework on the Powers of the Police

Section 214 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended: provides for the establishment of Nigerian Police Force. The Police exercise law enforcement powers while courts exercise judicial powers. These functions may interact but are not interchangeable. Where a dispute concerns the validity of competing deeds of assignment, interpretation of family allocation, legal effect of existing interest in land, determination of competing rights, its under the jurisdiction of the court. The police can only assist in collecting evidence relevant to the alleged offence, the police cannot transform investigative function into a binding determination of ownership.

Section 4 of the Police Act 2020 outlines the function of police officers to include: preventing and detecting crimes, apprehending offenders, preserving law and order, facilitate the free passage and movement on highways, roads, protecting life and property and enforcing laws and regulations. The power to protect property must be understood alongside the obligation to respect the legal rights of persons concerned. The police cannot derive a power to determine ownership of land simply by invoking their general duty to protect life and property. Otherwise, the very institution established to preserve law and order could become a means through which competing claimants circumvent the courts.

Police Independence and the Duty to Investigate

Fairness to the police requires acknowledging the other side of the ledger. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the power to investigate crime is statutory and independent, and that the courts will not ordinarily restrain a bonafide investigation. In Fawehinmi v. Inspector-General of Police (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606, the Supreme Court recognised that the police have the power to investigate alleged offences and that the exercise of that power is discretionary, so that a private litigant could not compel a particular investigation by mandamus. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Attorney-General of Anambra State v. Uba (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) 44 and the Court of Appeal’s later reaffirmations are to the same effect: the judiciary does not usurp the constitutional function of the executive to investigate crime.

The complaint is not that the police investigate crimes connected with land. It is that they sometimes use the machinery of criminal investigation for a purpose the law does not authorise. A court asked to intervene must therefore draw a careful line: it will not restrain a genuine investigation of forgery, fraud or violence, but it will restrain, and award damages for, arrest and detention used as a lever in a civil dispute. In Imam & Anor v. Usman & Anor (2023) LPELR-60203(CA), the applicants alleged that the first respondent intended to use the police to harass and detain them over a land transaction while a civil suit between the parties was pending. The trial court dismissed the claim on the footing that a person who feels cheated may complain to the police and that the police may investigate. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The decision stresses that the question is not merely whether the police have power to investigate, but whether, in the circumstances, the use of the police by a party to a pending civil dispute infringed the applicants’ rights, and it addresses the liability of a person who procures the police to act.

Prohibition of self-help: Nemo Judex In Casua Sua

In land disputes, self-help may include demolishing buildings or structures to establish possession; destroying fences, gates or other property belonging to an opposing claimant; using threats or violence to compel another party to surrender possession; invoking police powers to intimidate an opposing claimant into abandoning a disrupted interest; disregarding an applicable court order in an attempt to take possession of the property. Even if a person genuinely owns the land, does that ownership entitle the person to use force to recover possession? The answer is no. Ownership and the lawful enforcement of ownership are separate questions. A person may possess a valid legal interest in property and still act unlawfully when attempting to recover possession through prohibited means. The central principle remains that a disputed claim to ownership does not give a person unlimited authority to use force to impose that claim. In Okotie-Eboh & Ors v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Supreme Court, SC 126/1961, 11 June 1962), a criminal appeal for breach of the peace, Ademola CJF stated that a person in actual and peaceable possession, even one who began as a trespasser, must not be ousted with unreasonable force by a claimant, however rightful the claimant’s title; there must be recourse to the law or the courts.

A person may have better title and still have a right to possession by unlawful means. The prohibition of self-help protects more than the person who ultimately succeeds in the property dispute. It protects the integrity of the legal process itself. Without that protection, ownership becomes more than the person who owns the land but becomes a question of who can mobilise greater force, influence or coercive power. A police officer cannot lawfully determine that one party should surrender possession merely because that party’s documents appear less persuasive during an informal interview nor can a police station become the venue for compelling an opposing claimant to sign a document relinquishing a proprietary interest. In Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 (SC), Chief Emeka Ojukwu sought an injunction to restrain the Lagos State Government, the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General from ejecting him from a property at Queens Drive, Ikoyi. While his application was pending on appeal, the government forcibly evicted him and his family, describing its conduct as self-help. The Court of Appeal ordered his reinstatement, holding that the right of self-help ended once the issues had been turned over to the court. The Supreme Court upheld the principle. The court’s insistence that the rule of law binds the government itself applies with greater force to an individual claimant who borrows the state’s coercive power.

Legal Framework for Protection of Citizens

Citizens are entitled, and indeed expected, to report suspected criminal conduct. In Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank (Credit Lyonnais) Nigeria Ltd (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 558 (SC); (2009) LPELR-1231(SC), the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of citizens to report the commission of crime to the police for investigation, and that what happens after the report is the responsibility of the police. The mere fact that a report results in investigation, arrest or prosecution does not make the complainant liable for what the police then do on their own initiative. The rule protects the public interest in crime reporting. Without it, every honest complainant whose report did not end in conviction would be exposed to suit. The exception to this is where the complaint was made in bad faith and the complainant did more than merely report, for example by spearheading the arrest, detention or prosecution, even where there was no basis for it. In Anogwie & Ors v. Odom & Ors (CA/OW/337/2014), the court stated that a private individual who uses the police to settle a private score is himself liable for the wrongful act of the police.

Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, the law provides for the right to personal liberty. It protects personal liberty, subject to the exceptions prescribed by the Constitution. Police officers may arrest and detain persons where the applicable legal requirements are satisfied, including reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence. However, arrest is not a lawful instrument for compelling a person to surrender land, pay a disputed purchase price or abandon a civil claim.

Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, it guarantees the right to a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations by courts or other tribunals established by law. Where competing claimants are entitled to have their proprietary rights determined through judicial proceedings, neither should be able to bypass that process by securing an informal determination from the police. A police officer who decides which claimant should retain possession does not exercise the judicial jurisdiction required to resolve the dispute. There is an important qualification: not every police action connected with a pending civil suit automatically violates section 36. The issue is whether the action unlawfully usurps the judicial function, interferes with the proceedings or otherwise infringes a protected right.

Section 43 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, it recognises the right of every Nigerian citizen to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria, subject to the Constitution and applicable law. The right is relevant where police intervention results in unlawful interference with possession or the practical enjoyment of property. However, section 43 is not an automatic guarantee that every person claiming ownership is entitled to immediate possession. Where title is disputed, the competing interests must be determined according to the applicable law, and the constitutional right to own property does not remove the need to prove the relevant proprietary interest.

Section 44 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, it provides safeguards concerning compulsory acquisition of property by the state, subject to its terms and exceptions. It is important to distinguish unlawful private dispossession from compulsory acquisition by government. Not every demolition, eviction or interference with possession amounts to compulsory acquisition within the meaning of section 44.

Remedies Available to Victims of Unlawful Police Intervention

Whichever remedy is chosen, outcomes in these cases frequently turn on evidence that was not preserved. Practitioners should advise clients at the first sign of police involvement to keep:

1. Every police invitation, with date and name of the issuing officer.
2. The petition or complaint, obtained through counsel if necessary.
3. Records of arrest, time of arrest, places of detention and duration.
4. Any document signed in custody, with the circumstances in which it was signed.
5. Messages, call logs and recordings showing the complainant’s involvement. Court processes in any pending civil suit, and any legal advice already received that the matter is civil.

The remedies include;

1. 1. Interlocutory and Interim Injunction: Where there is a credible threat that the property may be demolished, transferred, developed or altered before the dispute is determined, an application for interim or interlocutory relief may be necessary. The court will consider the nature of the right asserted, the evidence of threatened interference and the balance of relevant considerations. An injunction is not automatic merely because an applicant claims ownership. Nevertheless, where the requirements are satisfied, injunctive relief can preserve the subject matter of the dispute and prevent the parties from creating a situation that makes the eventual judgment ineffective.
   2. Fundamental Human Rights Proceedings: where the facts disclose an infringement of the fundamental right, the affected person may consider instituting a proceeding subject to the provisions of the constitution and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. The reliefs sought may include: a declaration that the arrest or detention was unlawful; an injunction restraining further unlawful interference; damages.
   3. A civil action for declaration of title or recovery of possession: Where the substantive dispute concerns ownership or possession, the affected party may need to commence or pursue proceedings before the court with jurisdiction over the matter. The appropriate court and procedure depend on the nature of the claim, the location of the land and the applicable law.
   4. Damages: Where the evidence establishes an actionable wrong, damages may be available against the appropriate defendant or defendants. The court must determine the applicable cause of action, the parties responsible and the remedies justified by the evidence.

Conclusion

The law does not require the police to stand aside when genuine criminal conduct is alleged. The duty of police officers is to prevent and investigate crime remains essential to the protection of property and public order and that duty must be exercised within the limits imposed by the Constitution, the Police Act 2020, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the principles established by the courts. In Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu, no person, and no government, should be permitted to replace lawful adjudication with coercion merely because they believe their claim is stronger.

Ultimately, the protection of property rights requires more than determining who owns the land. It requires ensuring that the means employed to assert, defend or enforce those rights are themselves lawful. A legal system that protects ownership but tolerates unlawful dispossession has protected the right in theory while undermining it in practice. The police must not become the judge of disputed ownership, the enforcer of private bargains or the instrument through which one claimant defeats another without due process. The authority of police officers exists to enforce the law, not to replace it. When the line between investigation and adjudication is crossed, the question for the court is not whether the intervention was convenient, expedient or requested by a powerful party. The question is whether it was lawful. In a society governed by law, the strength of a person’s claim must be established through the proper legal process, not measured by the strength of the force they can command.