Forceful arrests in Nigeria: Experts weigh balance between national security, constitutional rights

By Precious Enaike & Tolu Folorunsho

Across Nigeria, forceful arrests have become one of the most visible and controversial features of law enforcement. Dramatic scenes of security operatives scaling fences, breaking gates and forcing their way into homes increasingly dominate public discourse.

Read Also: PFIPC: Police arrest Adeyemi’s father amid ongoing forgery probe

From ordinary young Nigerians stopped at checkpoints to politicians, judges, activists and other high-profile public figures, dramatic arrest operations have increasingly become public spectacles, reigniting questions about the balance between national security and individual rights.

Security agencies insist that such tactics are often dictated by operational realities. Critics, however, argue that while the law empowers security agencies to arrest suspects, it does not give them unrestricted licence to trample on constitutional safeguards or human dignity.

The latest incident to ignite public debate involved security operatives who reportedly climbed over the perimeter fence of a residence while attempting to arrest the father of Adeyemi Adeniyi. The dramatic operation, widely circulated on social media, revived an old constitutional question: When does an arrest stop being law enforcement and become excessive force?

When gates become battlefields

The incident is only the latest in a long line of controversial arrests that have blurred the line between operational necessity and excessive force.

Perhaps one of the most dramatic occurred in February 2022 when operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) stormed the Abuja residence of former Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha. Following hours of standoff, operatives broke sections of the perimeter fence to gain access.
The EFCC maintained that repeated attempts to execute the arrest peacefully had failed, making the operation unavoidable. Okorocha, however, insisted he never resisted arrest and later alleged that valuables disappeared from his residence during the operation—an allegation the anti-graft agency denied.

Years earlier, in October 2016, operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) conducted coordinated overnight raids on the homes of several serving judges over allegations of corruption. Doors were reportedly forced open after occupants allegedly failed to grant immediate access, triggering one of the fiercest national debates over judicial independence, due process and executive power since Nigeria’s return to democracy.

In May 2015, operatives of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) laid siege to the Lekki residence of the late former Ogun East Senator, Buruji Kashamu, following an extradition request from the United States over alleged drug trafficking offences. The legal battle that followed culminated in a Federal High Court ordering the agency to vacate the premises pending determination of the suit.

Former Senator Dino Melaye also endured repeated confrontations with security agencies, with heavily armed operatives laying siege to his residence during attempts to arrest him.

More recently, controversy surrounded the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) following allegations that operatives attempted to gain access to the organisation’s office after an invitation was issued to its leadership, further fuelling public concerns over how security agencies engage citizens.

Beyond the headlines

Away from celebrity politicians and viral videos lies another reality one experienced daily by ordinary Nigerians.

Young people, particularly those driving expensive vehicles or carrying laptops, frequently recount encounters with security operatives during stop-and-search operations. Commercial drivers and commuters also complain of harassment, prolonged delays, extortion and intimidation at checkpoints.
For many citizens, the issue is no longer whether suspects should be arrested—they should—but whether arrests are increasingly being carried out in ways that leave lasting emotional, psychological and even financial scars.

For the family whose gate is destroyed during an operation, for the children awakened by gun-wielding officers, and for neighbours who witness dramatic raids, the experience often extends far beyond the arrest itself.

What the law permits

Legal experts insist that Nigerian law gives security agencies powers of arrest—but not unlimited powers.
Lawyer Martins Onogie explained that Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every Nigerian the right to personal liberty while recognising that such liberty may be curtailed only in accordance with procedures established by law.

“The Constitution does not prohibit arrests. Rather, it requires that every deprivation of liberty must be in accordance with the law.

“The Administration of Criminal Justice Act and the Police Act recognise situations where law enforcement officers may arrest without a warrant, particularly where an offence has been committed in their presence or where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed an arrestable offence,” he said.

Another constitutional lawyer pointed to Section 35(3), which requires that every arrested person be informed promptly of the reason for the arrest in a language he or she understands.

“The Constitution envisages lawful arrests, not intimidation. Arresting a suspect is one thing; respecting the person’s dignity is another. The law expects officers to explain why the arrest is being made and to ensure that the suspect is brought before a court within a reasonable time,” she said.

She added that Section 34 of the Constitution protects the dignity of every individual, warning that unnecessary humiliation or excessive force during arrests could amount to constitutional violations.

A retired judge, who requested anonymity, said the real issue was not whether security agencies possess powers of arrest but whether those powers are exercised proportionately.

“The law permits reasonable force where there is resistance or where circumstances genuinely require it. However, breaking gates, climbing walls or damaging property should never become the default method of enforcing the law. Such actions must always be justified by necessity, not convenience.”

He also noted that Section 35(6) provides that any person unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to compensation and a public apology.

Operational dilemma

Retired security officers caution against condemning every forceful arrest. Former police legal officer, Yinka Gbadamosi, explained that operational decisions are often shaped by intelligence assessments rather than appearances.

“Operational commanders often rely on intelligence indicating that suspects may flee, destroy evidence or mobilise supporters to frustrate lawful arrests.

“There are situations where officers have no practical option but to use reasonable force. What the law prohibits is excessive or unnecessary force — not force itself.”

Security experts further note that officers attempting to arrest suspected kidnappers, terrorists, armed robbers and other violent offenders frequently confront fortified compounds, armed resistance or escape plans, leaving little room for negotiation.

The human cost

For human rights advocates, however, the greatest concern lies in what happens after the cameras leave. Rights campaigner Damilola Koseti argues that dramatic arrests often leave invisible wounds.

“Dramatic raids conducted before spouses, children and neighbours often inflict lasting psychological trauma while creating an impression of guilt before any court has determined the facts.

“The public judges security agencies not only by the criminals they arrest but also by how professionally they conduct those arrests.”

Legal scholars say professionalism, restraint and accountability remain the defining characteristics of democratic policing.

Finding the balance

Every arrest tells two stories. One belongs to the State seeking to enforce the law. The other belongs to the family left staring at a broken gate, frightened children and unanswered questions.

No serious society can function without effective policing, and security agencies must retain sufficient powers to combat crime and protect national security. Citizens, too, have a duty to obey lawful orders and refrain from resisting legitimate arrests.

But democracy demands something more. It demands that the immense powers entrusted to law enforcement be exercised within the limits of the law, with restraint, necessity and respect for human dignity. As videos of dramatic raids continue to dominate public discourse, Nigerians are increasingly asking not only whether suspects should be arrested, but whether justice can be done without leaving broken doors, shattered confidence and communities questioning the very institutions meant to protect them.

In the end, the true measure of justice is not merely that an arrest is made, but that it is carried out in a manner that preserves both public safety and the constitutional values upon which the nation is built.

Vanguard News