Diamond Bank Plc v. Opara [2018] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 92 at 115, paras. A-D, per Bage, JSC:

What is even more disturbing in recent times is the way and manner the Police and some other security agencies, rather than focus squarely on their statutory functions of investigation, preventing and prosecuting crimes, allow themselves to be used by overzealous and/or unscrupulous characters for the recovery of debts arising from simple contracts, loans or purely civil transactions. Our security agencies, particularly the police, must know that the citizenry’s confidence in them ought to first be ensured by the agencies themselves by jealously guarding the integrity of the uniform and powers conferred on them. The beauty of salt is in its taste. Once the salt loses its own taste, its value is irredeemably lost. I say this now and again, our security agencies, particularly the police, are not debt recovery agencies. The agencies themselves need to first come to this realization, shun all entreaties in this regard and they will see confidence gradually restored in them. Where we are now in this country is that place where our ‘Men in black & blue’ command almost no respect from the citizenry because of how low we have sunk. But it is my belief, which belief, I must say I hold very dearly, that all hope is not lost, many women and men of deep integrity are in our security agencies, and then only need to rise now to the occasion.

Notes

The Supreme Court has severally stressed that security agencies in Nigeria are not debt collectors and must therefore not allow themselves to be used as a vehicle to recover debt by persons, including banks and other financial institutions.

The reason for using security agencies to coerce and harass debtors is the belief that it would bring about speedy recovery of the debt especially from a debtor who appear unwilling to settle such debts. One way the mission is accomplished is by writing petitions against the debtor incorporating a criminal element or allegation into the contractual narrative. For instance, the common allegations are fraud, criminal fund diversion, obtaining by false pretences, etc. This is usually what invites the police to swing into action. Regrettably, the police often fail to carry out the required investigation in order to determine whether a prima facie criminal case exists. In many cases, we have seen that the Police appear to understand that the matter is a purely civil claim but would nevertheless proceed to assist the petitioner in the mischievous aim of ensuring faster recovery. This assistance is usually for a ‘fee’. Once the debtor, ‘alleged criminal’, is in the net, another ‘bail fee’ would be received. These practices appear to be well-planned and executed in the name of criminal investigation and prosecution.

The facts of the instant case present us yet again with a classic example. The Respondents took a secured loan from the Appellant Bank. While the loan was yet to be repaid, the Respondents suspected excessive bank charges on the loan account. The issue was referred by parties to Chartered Institute of Banker’s Sub-Committee on ethics and Professionalism for arbitration. While the matter was pending, the Appellant wrote a letter of demand to the Respondents and thereafter engaged the services of the Police. The 1^st Respondent was arrested and was not granted bail until he paid N2 Million to the Appellant. The Respondents thereafter filed a fundamental rights suit against the Appellant. While that was pending, the Appellant wrote another complaint to the EFCC alleging bank fraud and diversion of depositors’ funds. The EFCC wrote a letter of invitation to the 1^st Respondent. Upon receipt of the letter, the Respondents filed a suit against the Appellant and EFCC for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The case succeeded. The Supreme Court reasoned that although a mere letter of invitation by the EFCC does not constitute abuse of process of law, and/or breach of fundamental rights, the circumstances of the instant case pose an exception. The Court concluded that the multiple actions by the Appellant amounted to abuse of process of law and that the letter of invitation by the EFCC constituted likelihood of an infringement of the fundamental rights of the Respondents. Bage, JSC made the emphatic statement quoted above criticizing the Police for abusing the integrity of their office.

In his contribution, Galinje, JSC at p. 120 observed that the use of security agencies to enforce contractual claims negatively impacts on the economy. He said:

Detention of persons on disputes over purely commercial transactions will have the effect of scaring away investors and this will ultimately affect negatively the economy of our country.

Featured Image Credit: ThisDay