naptu2:







It's not the fault of the police.

The suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a competent court of law.

Parading them in public and in the media will make people believe that they are guilty and expose them to stigmatisation, even though they have not been convicted by a court. What if the court eventually finds the suspect not guilty?

Lots of human rights groups and lawyers have threatened to sue the police for parading suspects in public. Therefore the police no longer shows their faces when they are being paraded.

In some countries the police does everything it can to keep the identities of suspects hidden until they are convicted by the court.

GavelSlam:


Yet we see mug shots of yet to be convicted people the world over.

Over sabi can worry us sha.

Falana: Police parade poor suspects, not rich thieves

March 26, 2017. 17:12


Femi Falana, human rights lawyer, has advised the 20 paraded suspects in the Ile-Ife clash and members of the Peace Corps of Nigeria to sue the federal government for aggravated damages.

Falana said the media parade of the suspects by the police infringed their fundamental rights, and that it also violated the principle of presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

The rights lawyer said the criminal suspects often paraded were poor while rich people who steal billions of naira from the treasury were not.

He also asked the attorney-general of the federation to direct law enforcement agencies to desist from parading criminal suspects.

“Although the courts have repeatedly cautioned the law enforcement agencies to desist from parading criminal suspects before the media the inspector-general of police, Mr Ibrahim Idris has justified the illegal practice. It was a defence which smacks of official impunity and insensitivity,” he wrote in an article.

“Notwithstanding that such media parade is prejudicial to the fundamental right of criminal suspects to fair hearing the ruling class has not stopped it because it is part of the humiliation of lowly placed citizens. Hence, while it is not unusual to parade poor criminal suspects who are accused of stealing handsets whose value is less than N10,000 it is infra dignitate to parade rich and powerful criminal suspects who loot the treasury to the tune of several billions of naira.”

He narrated how Fela Anikulapo, the late musician, floored the government in court after he was paraded in handcuffs by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) for alleged possession of a banned substance.

“On January 14, 1997, the late Fela Anikulapo-Kuti was arrested by officials of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency for being in possession of alleged narcotic substances,” he wrote.

“Convinced that the agency had caught a big fish the then chairman of the NDLEA, the late Major-General Musa Bamaiyi addressed a press conference wherein he paraded Fela in handcuffs. After the media parade the famous musician slammed a N100 million suit against the NDLEA for violating his fundamental rights to fair hearing, personal liberty and human dignity. As Fela’s parade in handcuffs could not be justified in law the federal high court ordered his unconditional release from further detention.

“Before the suspect’s arraignment at the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal he had characteristically played a fast one on the NDLEA. At the end of his marathon interrogation he signed the charge sheet but cleverly added ‘in chains’. In opposing the Fela’s application for bail at the tribunal the NDLEA counsel referred the trial judge to his ‘written confessional statement’.

“In my short submission on behalf of the defendant I urged the court to discountenance the statement as it was obtained |in chains” or under duress. Having publicly paraded the suspect in handcuffs the prosecutor could not challenge my submission.

“As the charge could not be proved on the basis of a discredited ‘confessional statement’ the NDLEA was compelled to approach the defence for an amicable resolution of the criminal case. To the embarrassment of the military junta, the NDLEA offered to discontinue the criminal charge and pleaded with Fela to withdraw his civil suit pending at the federal high court.

“When I asked Fela if the proposal was acceptable to him he said, ‘Na good deal as Bamaiyi don beg me’. As soon as Fela’s decision was communicated to the NDLEA the charge was withdrawn and struck out by the tribunal. Thereafter, Fela’s civil case was equally withdrawn. Notwithstanding the incident the NDLEA and other law enforcement agencies have continued to engage in the media trial and parade of criminal suspects.

“To stop the illegal practice we are compelled to call on the attorney-general of the federation and minister of justice, Mr Abubakar Malami SAN to order the arrest and prosecution of law enforcement personnel who engage in the media parade, trial and extrajudicial killing of criminal suspects in custody.”

Falana also advised media organisations to stop “colluding” with law enforcement agencies to publish photographs of criminal suspects, saying such publications are libelous.

“Since the report of the media trial and parade of criminal suspects including the publication of their photographs is libelous in every material particular the publishers and owners of media organisations are advised to stop colluding with law enforcement personnel in the crude violation of human rights,” he said.

“In this regard, the detained members of the Peace Corps of Nigeria and the Ile Ife 20 who have been paraded by the police Authorities are advised to sue the federal government in the federal high court for aggravated and exemplary damages.”

naptu2:







It's not the fault of the police.

The suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a competent court of law.

Parading them in public and in the media will make people believe that they are guilty and expose them to stigmatisation, even though they have not been convicted by a court. What if the court eventually finds the suspect not guilty?

Lots of human rights groups and lawyers have threatened to sue the police for parading suspects in public. Therefore the police no longer shows their faces when they are being paraded.

In some countries the police does everything it can to keep the identities of suspects hidden until they are convicted by the court.

GavelSlam:


Yet we see mug shots of yet to be convicted people the world over.

Over sabi can worry us sha.

College of Policing says forces should name suspects when charged, but not when arrested
By Press Gazette

May 21, 2013

The College of Policing has issued nationwide guidelines saying arrested persons should not be named unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The naming policy of arrested individual has varied from force to force. It has been argued that in high profile sex assault cases, such as that involving Stuart Hall, more victims have come forward after a suspect's identity has been revealed.






















The move follows a consultation led by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Writing exclusively in Press Gazette two weeks ago ACPO media lead Andy Trotter said he wanted to end the "bizarre parlour game" where journalists entice press officers to confirm that a certain person has been arrested.

Under the guidance suspects should be named when they are charged by police along with their address, occupation and charge details. At this point police must consult the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) if they want to withhold the name.




But at point of arrest, the guidance says: "Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis but, save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public."

Police forces might name an arrested person if there is a threat to life, to help the prevention or detection of crime or it is a matter of public interest and confidence, the guidance says.




It also adds that there is nothing to prevent police forces from naming an arrested person where there is a "policing purpose" and individuals themselves have the right to inform others of their arrest.

Elsewhere, the guidance says there is an "obligation on the police service to engage with the media", while officers and staff are "encouraged to speak to the media about matters for which they are responsible".

It adds: "They should be open, honest and approachable."

The guidance says there might be occasions when it is appropriate for officers or staff to speak on an unattributable basis, frequently known as off-the-record conversations, to "clarify a point or illustrate a point, for example, to guide media away from an inaccurate story".

However, it adds that any such occasions should be "authorised and recorded".

College of Policing chief executive Chief Constable Alex Marshall said: "What the police do must be above reproach, and ensuring integrity in our dealings with the media and the public goes to the heart of trust and confidence in policing.

"The guidance aims to strike the correct balance between the confidentiality owed to private citizens and the need for an open and honest relationship with the media."

Last week, it emerged Home Secretary Theresa May had written to the college over reports that some forces refused to name suspects who had been charged.

Warwickshire Police recently came under fire for initially refusing to name a retired police officer charged with theft.

The force, which eventually performed a U-turn and revealed the identity of the retired officer as Paul Greaves, originally claimed it had altered guidance in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.

May said she believes in protecting the identities of suspects at point of arrest, unless it is in the "public interest", while charged individuals should have no right to anonymity except in "extremely unusual circumstances".

National policing lead for communications Chief Constable Andy Trotter said: "An open, professional and strong relationship with the media is an essential aspect of the way in which the police are held to account.

"This guidance actively encourages police officers and staff to speak to the mediaabout matters for which they are responsible. They should be open, honest and approachable.

"The police also have a duty to safeguard information. At times the decision between openness and confidentiality can be finely balanced.

"We aim to bring into the open our guidance about when someone should be named or not so that the approach is clearly understood."

A Home Office spokesman said: "The Home Secretary has been clear that transparency and consistency should be at the heart of the criminal justice system. We will carefully monitor the way forces name suspects and keep the guidance under review."

Kirsty Hughes, chief executive of freedom of speech campaigners Index on Censorship, said: "The default position that people who have been arrested should not be named goes against the principle of open justice that our criminal justice is based on.

"Rather than a policy of secrecy with exceptional circumstances for naming individuals, Index believes there should be a policy of openness with exceptional circumstances for witholding information.

"Sweeping powers for secrecy should not be the norm."

naptu2:
Gavelslam and descartes400

The basic principle is this.

Imagine that you were at the site of this brewery, but you are not a brewer, neither did you know what was happening. You simply came to visit someone. Imagine also that you are at the scene of a murder and you are not a murderer, but the Nigerian police (in their usual way) arrest you and parade you before the media as one of the killers or someone connected with the killing.

Then imagine that you are found innocent by the court and imagine that you can no longer get a job or rent an apartment because you name and image is all over social media as one of the murderers?

This is why policemen are not the ones to pronounce a person innocent or guilty. That's the job of a court. The police can release your identity if they believe that a life is in danger or that you might commit another crime, but most police forces will do everything possible to conceal the identity of the suspect until it is made known by a court.

However, there are a lot of leaks in the US (remember what happened with the identity of the Manchester attacker? )

GavelSlam:


The police upon conducting investigation based on corroborated testimonies and outright confession can and should in fact be encouraged to publish mugshots.
Even the articles you posted said as much.

The Legality Of Public Parade Of Criminal Suspects By Olufemi Fasanu Esq.

By Unini Chioma -
May 17, 2017

In recent times the issue of public parade of criminal suspects has become a trend in the Nigerian criminal justice system. Public parade of suspect is basically a practice among law enforcement agents where persons suspected of having committed criminal offences are put forward before pressmen or the members of the public pending the arraignment of the suspects in court. In most instances after such public parade, some of the suspects are eventually released from police custody for lack of sufficient evidence to link them with the alleged offence.

It is also not unusual for the paraded suspect to be discharged and acquitted by the court.

After the release of the suspect is left with the public impression of being a criminal as the press men before whom the suspect is paraded are not invited and the allegation retracted before them.




With the trending rate of public parade of suspects by Nigerian Law enforcement agents both on electronic and print media and also the display of suspects before crowd of people, one may be in doubt as to the legality of this action considering the fact that those parading the suspects are the ones saddled with the responsibility of enforcing laws and should therefore know the law.

Several arguments have been put forward as to the merits of public parade of suspects. The arguments in favour of public parade of criminal suspects majorly come from law enforcement agents, particularly the police.

It has been reasoned that public parade of suspects by the police is to boost public morale of the police men on patrol as well as well as to promote the efficiency and the capacity of the Police to detect crime in the society. It is also seen as deterrence to other members of the public watching or reading about the paraded suspects to desist from crime.Arguments in favour of public parade of suspects have been pushed further that the suspects are paraded as suspects not as convicts and as such they are not being prejudged by the police.

In essence, from the perspective of some individuals like the law enforcement agents, public parade of criminal suspects is seen as a welcome development which would boost public confidence in the Law enforcement agents and make the public consider them as being proactive.

There could be some administrative justification for the public parade of suspects. However the legality of this barbaric idea can be questioned, particularly when the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Constitution are put into perspective. The Constitution specifically provides that:

Every person charge with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.

Article 7(b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right provides that :

Every individual shall have right to have his case heard. This comprise the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty before a competent Court or tribunal

The necessary implication of the above provisions is that a person suspected of criminal offence is to be given the benefit of doubt until his guilt has been established in court. Presumption of innocence extends to the kind of treatment the suspect is expected to be given. Parading an individual before the public as a suspect cannot obviously be said to be in compliance with the presumption of innocence as such parade is aimed at giving the impression of guilt on the mind of the public viewing the suspect.

Another legal implication of public parade of criminal suspect is that it amounts to a violation of the suspect’s right to dignity of human person. Section 34 (1) of the Constitution provides that:

Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly (a.) no person shall be subjected torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment

The above provision clearly negates the public parade of suspect as it amount to a degrading treatment for a suspect to be paraded in public before the press as a criminal suspect. Furthermore the manner in which the suspect are paraded leaves no one in doubt as to their guilt as they are often half naked having had their cloths seized and made to sit on bare floor oftentimes in handcuffs with various dangerous weapons and life ammunitions arranged in front of them. The law requires that a person arrested must be given a human treatment and not be subject to any degrading treatment.

It is also a form of psychological torture for suspects to be forced to accede to various criminal offences before the public. Torture is totally opposed to the presumption of an accused person. The legality of public parade of criminal suspects in Nigeria remains an issue of divergent views until there is a specific court pronouncement on it.

ruggedboy01:
from the shape of their heads, they are vultures from the land of skull miners

dominique:
Imagine concocting what human beings will consume into their systems under such unsanitary conditions. Some people are too heartless, I can't deal.

I wish they posted pictures of the finished product so we can look out for it on the stands.

Guestlander:
Some people have no conscience.