Blog Single

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 Nigeria Police Force may prevent and investigate offences arising from a land transaction, but it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed title, allocate possession between rival claimants or compel performance of a private agreement. A land dispute does not immunise anyone from criminal investigation; equally, an allegation labelled fraud does not authorise the police to enforce what is, on the evidence, only a civil obligation.

The controlling distinction is between investigating identifiable criminal conduct and using coercive state power to secure a private proprietary advantage. This article explains that distinction, the prohibition of forcible self-help and the remedies available where police intervention exceeds lawful limits. It addresses Nigerian law generally, with additional provisions applicable specifically in Lagos State.

2 Constitutional and statutory limits

Sections 6 and 214 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, respectively locate judicial authority in the courts and establish the Nigeria Police Force. Police assessment of documents for an investigation is not a judicial determination of title. Sections 34, 35, 36 and 46 protects dignity, liberty, fair hearing and access to constitutional remedies. Section 43 protects a Nigerian citizen’s right to acquire and own immovable property; it does not establish that a particular claimant owns disputed land. Section 44 concerns compulsory taking and acquisition, subject to its exceptions, and should not be invoked indiscriminately for every private eviction or seizure. [1]

Under section 4 of the Nigeria Police Act 2020, the police prevent and detect crime, protect life and property and maintain public safety and order. These duties confer no general power to decide civil ownership. Section 32(2) expressly prohibits arrest merely for a civil wrong or breach of contract. Section 35 provides safeguards concerning notification of the reason for arrest, silence and access to legal advice. These provisions must govern the actual purpose and manner of intervention, not merely the description written on a petition. [2]

Section 8(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 likewise prohibits arrest merely on a civil wrong or breach of contract. Section 7 prohibits arrest in place of a suspect. Sections 6 and 8 address safeguards and humane treatment. The Act’s application must be read with section 2: federal offences and offences punishable in the Federal Capital Territory are covered; relevant State Administration of Criminal Justice Laws must also be considered for State offences. The federal Act should not simply be described as the procedural law governing every State prosecution. [3]

3 Civil default must not be converted into crime

In Kure v Commissioner of Police (2020) LPELR-49378(SC), also reported in (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1729) 296, the Supreme Court set aside convictions arising from a failed supply transaction. The Court distinguished a contractual default from the ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating and condemned police involvement in a purely civil dispute. [4]

Applied to land transactions, failure to deliver possession, disagreement over the balance of the price or competing interpretations of an agreement ordinarily call for civil remedies. Criminal liability requires the ingredients of an offence and supporting evidence. Forgery of a conveyance, dishonest inducement, violence or destruction of property may warrant investigation notwithstanding a related civil claim. A complainant cannot establish fraud simply by describing an unsuccessful purchase or disputed title in criminal language.

4 Investigation remains lawful where a genuine offence is disclosed

Fawehinmi v Inspector General of Police (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606 must be read with care. The Supreme Court did not establish an unrestricted discretion to refuse investigation or a general rule that mandamus can never lie. It recognised judicial scrutiny of a refusal to perform a public duty and held that a serving Governor’s constitutional immunity did not itself prohibit investigation. Immunity from specified proceedings and arrest was distinguished from investigation. [5]

The existence of a pending title action is therefore not, by itself, a legal bar to investigating an independently disclosed offence. The police must nevertheless identify a lawful basis for arrest, respect applicable safeguards and avoid using investigation to determine the civil controversy. An injunction should target proved or credibly threatened unlawful conduct; it should not confer immunity from all future investigation.

A recent illustration is Dr Osondu Godwin Atagbuzia v Nigerian Police Force and 4 Others, Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/56/2025, High Court of the FCT, Bamodu J, judgment of 10 June 2025. Although ownership was disputed, the Court found that the investigation concerned alleged conspiracy and theft of an original right of occupancy document. The applicant failed to prove the alleged rights violations, and his claim was dismissed. Retention of the document for investigation was also distinguished from compulsory acquisition under section 44. See particularly pages 14–17. This is a first instance decision, persuasive rather than binding appellate authority, and illustrates the importance of the actual complaint and evidence. [6]

5 Self help and forcible recovery of possession

A claimant’s belief in the superiority of his title does not authorise him to use armed men, threats, demolition or police pressure to displace another claimant. A substantive entitlement and the lawful procedure for enforcing it are separate matters.

In Military Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 (SC), the Supreme Court condemned executive self help in a property dispute already before the courts. Government could not frustrate judicial proceedings by forcible eviction. The principle protects the authority of the courts as well as the person dispossessed. [7]

The appropriate route is an action for the relief justified by the claimant’s interest, followed by lawful execution of an enforceable order. Police assistance to authorised execution officers must remain within the judgment, the applicable execution process and any subsisting stay. A private petition, police legal opinion or copy of a judgment is not an unrestricted warrant to demolish buildings or evict persons beyond the scope of lawful execution.

6 Additional protection under lagos state law

The Lagos State Properties Protection Law 2016 provides direct statutory protection. Sections 2 and 3 prohibit forcible takeover and entry by violence; section 3(2) expressly denies that a right to possession is itself lawful authority to use or threaten violence. Section 6 restricts execution of land judgments through law enforcement agents, vigilantes or other bodies except as authorised by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act or other law. Section 8 addresses specified unauthorised sales. Section 10 prohibits knowingly false, frivolous petitions and requires a land petition to be accompanied by a sworn declaration. These provisions apply within Lagos State and should not be presented as a nationwide statute. [8]

The legislation permits enforcement against land related offences; it does not transform a police station or land enforcement task force into a civil court. A rival claim, without proof of the relevant offence, should not automatically be treated as land grabbing. The disputed proprietary interest and the alleged criminal act must be examined separately.

7 Responsibility of police officers and private complainants

An honest report of suspected crime does not automatically make its maker liable for every subsequent police act. Responsibility must be established by evidence of the particular defendant’s conduct. Conversely, private procurement of an unlawful detention, participation in coercion or use of officers to obtain possession may support liability where the relevant cause of action and causal connection are proved.

Counsel should distinguish the initial report from later instructions, attendance at the station, demands made as conditions of release, payments, communications and participation in demolition or eviction. Malice should not be inferred solely from the existence of a civil dispute. Neither should the police be treated as immune merely because a private person initiated the complaint. Each respondent’s role requires separate pleading and proof.

8 Judicial remedies and procedural choices

Fundamental rights enforcement: Section 46 of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 provide a route where a protected right has been, is being or is likely to be infringed. Depending on the evidence, relief may include declarations, release, a precisely framed injunction and compensation. Section 35(6) provides compensation and public apology for unlawful arrest or detention. The principal complaint must genuinely concern the protected right; a title action should not be repackaged merely to obtain ownership through the rights procedure. [1, 9]

Property proceedings: Where title, boundaries or possession form the substantive dispute, appropriate civil relief may include a declaration, recovery of possession, injunction and damages for trespass. The competent court, parties, territorial jurisdiction and applicable pre-action requirements must be identified. A successful rights claim does not necessarily resolve title.

Urgent protection: Credible evidence of threatened demolition, forcible entry or irreversible development may justify an urgent application under the relevant court rules. Interim ex-parte relief requires genuine urgency and full disclosure; interlocutory relief requires the applicable legal and equitable conditions, ordinarily including an undertaking as to damages. An existing dispossession may require specifically pleaded restorative or mandatory relief rather than a merely prohibitory order.

Tort and other remedies: False imprisonment, trespass, assault and property damage may support separate or appropriately combined claims. Malicious prosecution requires proof of its distinct elements, including favourable termination of the prosecution; it is not established merely by an invitation or arrest. Where torture is alleged, consider the Anti Torture Act 2017 in addition to constitutional relief. The Act does not permit exceptional circumstances or superior orders to justify torture. [10]

The forum must be selected by reference to the principal claim and governing jurisdictional authorities. The involvement of the police does not automatically make every land related claim a matter for the Federal High Court. Join respondents against whom sustainable relief is sought, identify the acts attributable to each and avoid unsupported omnibus allegations.

9 Evidence and practical safeguards

Preserve invitations, the underlying petition where obtainable, station and officer details, the grounds given for arrest, dates and duration of detention, bail conditions, medical evidence and every document signed in custody. Preserve title documents, survey plans, photographs, damage valuations, existing court processes and certified orders. Keep communications showing who requested or directed the impugned acts.

Electronic records should be preserved with their original files, devices and relevant metadata, and tendered in compliance with the Evidence Act 2011 as amended in 2023, including the requirements governing electronic evidence. A signed undertaking obtained at a police station is not automatically void; any challenge should identify and prove duress, illegality or another recognised ground. Obtain a copy and record the circumstances promptly.

Counsel should respond to police invitations through lawful channels, request clarification of the alleged offence and seek access to legal representation. Where police powers are being misused, a documented complaint to the appropriate supervisory or oversight body may complement urgent court proceedings. Administrative complaints should not delay necessary protection against imminent injury.

10 Conclusion

Police powers protect the public against crime; they do not provide an alternative system of civil land adjudication. The correct response depends on the substance of the complaint, the evidence of an offence and the legality of the measures taken. Genuine criminal allegations may be investigated alongside civil litigation. Arrest for a civil obligation, coercive surrender of property and forcible recovery outside lawful process remain impermissible. A sound challenge must identify the precise abuse, prove it and seek relief directed to it.

Authorities and source notes

[1] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, ss 6, 34–36, 43–44, 46 and 214. Official constitutional text: https://nigeriarights.gov.ng/files/constitution.pdf

[2] Nigeria Police Act 2020, ss 4, 32(2) and 35. Text: https://placng.org/i/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Police-Act-2020.pdf. The relevant prohibitions are cited from the 2020 Act; proposed reforms are not treated as enacted law.

[3] Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, ss 2, 6–8. Federal Ministry of Justice text: https://justice.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Administration-of-Justice-Criminal-Act-2015.pdf

[4] Kure v Commissioner of Police (2020) LPELR-49378(SC); (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1729) 296; SC.317/2018, 24 January 2020. Judgment reproduction: https://lawcarenigeria.com/kure-v-cop-2020/

[5] Fawehinmi v Inspector General of Police (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606 (SC), 10 May 2002. Judgment reproduction: https://lawcarenigeria.com/chief-gani-fawehinmi-v-inspector-general-of-police/

[6] Dr Osondu Godwin Atagbuzia v Nigerian Police Force and 4 Others, FCT/HC/CV/56/2025, 10 June 2025, Bamodu J, pp 14–17. Official judgment: https://www.fcthighcourt.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/DR.-OSONDU-GODWIN-ATAGBUZIA-VS-N.P.F.-4-ORS-ENFORCEMENT-OF-FUNDAMENTAL-RIGHT.pdf

[7] Military Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 (SC), 14 February 1986. Judgment: https://nigerialii.org/akn/ng/judgment/ngsc/1986/13/eng%401986-02-14

[8] Lagos State Properties Protection Law 2016, Law No. 7, ss 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10. Official Gazette, No. 42, Vol. 49, 9 September 2016, pp A47–A51: https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng-la/2016/ng-la-official-gazette-dated-2016-09-09-no-42.pdf

[9] Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. Text: https://www.refworld.org/legal/decreees/natlegbod/2009/104236

[10] Anti Torture Act 2017, particularly ss 2–3 and 8–9. Gazette text: https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng/2018/ng-government-gazette-dated-2018-01-09-no-3.pdf