Olajengbesi OS

When Law Guardians Turn
Traitors: Betraying Justice, the society and Their Sacred Duty

Recently, a friend of mine in Lokoja reached out to narrate an ordeal that transpired between her brother and a civil defense officer. When her dog escaped from the compound, the unleashed animal bit a passerby who happened to be a Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) officer. This prompted the officer to fetch a gun in a fit of rage and shoot dead not just the offending dog, but its companion as well. As a security personnel, the officer then arrested her brother, detaining him unlawfully for a day and subjecting him to a brutal beating (I saw pictures of the bruises and asked myself: is there hope for Nigeria?). This event raises profound questions as to accountability, animal welfare, and the abuse of power by security personnel in a country with well-written laws and legislation. If a law enforcement officer who bears the mantle of upholding the law and whose conduct is expected to serve as an example to ordinary citizens is now the one flouting it through abuse of power then God has to save us. We are always quick to find fault with our leaders but still everyone keeps flouting the strength of the law illegally. This article dissects the event that transpired, examining it through the lens of the law.

The Dog Owner's Negligence

At the bedrock of the incident lies the dog's escape, which occasioned the injury to an innocent passerby. When the owner of such an animal fails to restrain it and prevent such harm, the law rooted in principles of negligence and strict liability for animals comes into play.

Under the law of torts, dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their animals if the dog exhibits a "vicious propensity," meaning a known tendency to attack humans or other animals. This is encapsulated in the scienter rule, which holds that once an owner has knowledge (or should have) of the animal's dangerous nature, they are liable without proof of negligence. Even for non-vicious dogs (mansuetae naturae), owners must exercise reasonable care to keep them under control. Failure to do so—such as inadequate securing of the compound or restraining of the animal constitutes negligence, making the owner (in this case, the friend's family) primarily at fault for the initial bite.

In apportioning blame, the owner bears the heaviest initial responsibility for preventable harm, underscoring the need for better pet management in urban compounds. However, this liability does not justify vigilante retribution; the escalation lies squarely with the officer.

The Officer's Overreach: Animal Cruelty and Excessive Force

The civil defense officer's response retrieving a firearm to execute both dogs transforms a misdemeanor into a potential felony, breaching multiple statutes on animal welfare and the use of force.

Nigeria's Criminal Code Act provides robust protections against animal cruelty. Sections 450 and 456 explicitly prohibit the unlawful killing, wounding, or poisoning of animals "capable of being stolen," which includes dogs as property. The act describes such offenses as misdemeanors, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment, with no exemption for "anger" or personal vendetta. While the offending dog posed an immediate threat during the attack, summarily shooting it (and its innocent companion) post-incident constitutes unnecessary suffering.

NSCDC officers are empowered to bear firearms under the NSCDC Act for protecting national assets, but this is tightly regulated for defensive purposes only. Training modules emphasize "responsible use" and prohibit misuse against civilians or non-threats, with recent directives from the FCT Commandant warning against misconduct. Here, the officer's actions smack of abuse of office, as firearms are not licensed for euthanizing strays or settling personal scores. Blame falls heavily on the individual officer for escalating a civil matter into lethal violence, which constitutes misconduct under the NSCDC Code of Conduct. His superiors share vicarious liability if they failed to supervise arming protocols, highlighting systemic issues in paramilitary training.

Unlawful Arrest and Assault: Violation of Fundamental Rights

The arrest, one-day detention, and beating of the brother represent a blatant infringement on personal liberty and dignity, emblematic of broader security agency excesses.

Under Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution, no one may be deprived of liberty except in accordance with law such as reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offense presented to a court within 24-48 hours. The brother's detention without charge or warrant qualifies as false imprisonment, actionable via fundamental rights enforcement under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.

The physical beating constitutes assault under Section 252 of the Criminal Code, which deems any unlawful application of force a crime, regardless of injury, as assault.

The brother, merely a family member, had no direct involvement, making this a case of collective punishment illegal and unethical. Blame rests with the officer for initiating the abuse and any complicit colleagues for failing to intervene. Broader authorities, including NSCDC leadership, are culpable for a culture of impunity, as evidenced by recurring human rights violations in southeast Nigeria.

In conclusion, this incident in Lokoja exemplifies how a minor lapse in pet ownership can spiral into profound injustice when unchecked power intervenes, reflecting deeper systemic flaws in Nigeria’s security apparatus. While the dog owner must acknowledge their negligence and take steps to prevent future harms such as better securing their compound the officer’s rage-fueled killing of the dogs and the brutal treatment of the brother highlight a dangerous overreach by those sworn to protect. In reality, pursuing justice in Nigeria often faces obstacles like delayed court processes, potential corruption, and reluctance from authorities to hold their own accountable, which can discourage victims from seeking redress.

That said, I recommend that my friend file a formal complaint with the police and petition the NSCDC against the officer, while prioritizing a Fundamental Rights Enforcement action in the High Court to address the unlawful detention and assault. Engaging the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) could also amplify the case and push for an independent investigation. Though such events sadly occur daily to ordinary Nigerians, incremental actions like these supported by civil society and media scrutiny can chip away at impunity. True change requires not just individual accountability but reforms in training and oversight for security agencies. Until then, citizens must remain vigilant, using the law as a tool, however imperfect, to demand better from those in power.



www.instagram.com/p/DPtxQD0CNBO/?igsh=MTJ2cWxyaTI4…

9 months ago | [YT] | 0