Duties of Police

I agree that the appellant intended the natural and probable consequence of his action. Police officers who are entrusted with arms while on duty should realize that the arm is to be used to protect members of the public and not to use same to kill them. The behavior of the appellant on the fateful night against an unarmed civilian was most barbaric and uncalled for. I hope and pray that this kind of behaviour will not repeat itself. It is on this note that I resolve this sole issue against the appellant.

OLA v. STATE LGC(6/7/2018) O

​ There is nothing in the processes filed by the Respondent disputing that the fourth to the sixth Appellants were carrying out their lawful duties along the Kano/Gumel highway on the day in question when they flagged down the motorcycle conveying the Respondent with the intent to carry out a search of the rider and passenger(s).
Now, if the facts in these depositions of the Appellants are indeed correct, the act of the Respondent in obstructing the officers in the course of carrying out their lawful duty was wrongful and opened him up for arrest and that his resisting of arrest was wrongful and that officers would have acted rightly in enforcing the arrest and in leg-cuffing the Respondent to restrain in him from running away. This will mean that the fourth to the sixth Appellants acted legally and that their actions were not in breach of the fundamental rights of the Respondent.
After all, it is settled law that fundamental rights of a citizen are not absolute – Ukegbu Vs National Broadcasting Corporation (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt 1055) 551 and Ukpabio Vs National Film and Video Censors Board (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt 1092) 219. They can be curtailed by the appropriate authorities where there are grounds for doing so – Dokubo-Asari Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt 1048) 320 and Onyirioha Vs Inspector General of Police (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt 1128) 342. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.