TO mischief makers and perhaps some laymen, self–help is attractive as it means nothing more than helping one-self out of a situation more often than not bothering on a redress to a perceived wrong. It operates on a principle bereft of due process of law.
Indeed, I once heard a man saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong in wriggling oneself or cronies out of any situation not wit- standing the means used to achieve the result, after all, it is in the nature of man to justify an action by the outcome. There is also a saying in a part of our country that it does not matter how you kill your enemy but what matters is that the enemy is killed.
With this mindset, there seems to be nothing wrong with the application of self- help in resolving differences.
In the eye of the law, however, there is everything fundamentally wrong with resort to self- help in resolution of matters. It is an extra-judicial means of seeking remedy to a perceived wrong to the detriment of due process and the rule of law.
Black law’s Dictionary 9th edition at page 1482 defines self -help as“an attempt to redress a perceived wrong by one’s own action rather than through due process”
In our society today, especially where many are vindictive, and power drunk, a lot of resort to self-help goes on with little or nothing to abate the menace.
Unfortunately, the security operatives particularly the police charged with maintenance of law and order, appear to on the contrary not be equipped or ready to tackle the menace as some bad eggs within the fold even aid and abate this ugly narrative.
Only recently, a vulnerable Nigerian narrated how some security operatives, including a police woman Inspector led some carpenters to forcefully and unlawfully remove the roof of his shop, demolished the structures therein and removed the caravan acting on the complaint of a couple who wanted to recover the premises from the tenant.
The Tenant was also detained for four good days and denied bail despite the fact that the he had a reliable and willing surety. The vulnerable citizen painfully narrated how he was hand-cuffed, harassed, humiliated and detained by the security operatives for four days.
According to him, before he was forcefully ejected and his shop destroyed the coupled has were willing to go to court to recover the premises having served the tenant 7 days’ Notice of owner’s Intention to apply to court to recover premises.
The couple however, made a detour resorting to self-help and engaged the services of the security operatives to eject the tenant.
This is a typical case of resort to self- help and the law in very clear terms frowns at such extra judicial means of seeking remedy. The courts have at every available opportunity expressed condemnation of resort to self- help whether perpetrated by a security operatives or any other person.
Both the person who procures the security operatives and the security operatives who participate in the extra judicial act of the wrong doing. This is the position of the supreme court in Ajao v Ashiru (1973) 11 SC 23 where the court held for instance, that a landlord who uses police or task force to unlawfully evict a tenant is liable in trespass as if he had done the eviction himself.
Similarly, the courts have made it abundantly clear that any private individual who procures the police to settle a private score or do illicit duty would himself be liable for the wrongful act of the police . This clearly adumbrated in a plethora of cases like Nkpa v Nkume (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.710) 543., Gasua v Umezurike (2012)28 WRN 111 at 145 among others.
The courts have also deprecated the involvement of security operatives in civil matters which are outside their statutory scope or jurisdiction see the case of Mclarence v Jennings (2003) 3NWLR (Pt. 808).
From the fore goings, it is crystal clear that self- help is unlawful, preposterous and highly reprehensible and the law will never hesitate to deal with the perpetrators.
Besides it is uncivilized and an affront to due process and rule of law . It elevates the rule of brute force over and above the rule of law. For modern and civilized society, self-help should be avoided like a disease. It can easily lead to violation of a citizen’s fundamental rights.
The courts exist for the social engineering of the society and no force or other institution shall usurp that role. Landlords or persons engaging the police or any security operatives to settle private issues need to again be reminded that the long arm of the law will come down heavily against them for such wrongful use of security operatives. They will surely pay through the nose. See the case of Uchendu v Ogboni (1994) 4SC (pt.1 1).
As a matter of fact, the police have no business to meddle into civil matter and should restrict themselves to the statutory duties of prevention, detection and prosecuting crime in the society.
For vulnerable citizens, who are victims of such self-help there is remedy and this lies in consulting a lawyer for necessary legal steps to redress the wrong.
Nobody is above the law and the law does not compromise its role of ensuring manifest justice to all and sundry, through equity, fairness and due process.
It is not too late for the hierarchy of the security operatives particularly the police to properly educate their officers and men to stop expanding the frontiers of impunity and lawlessness by resisting the temptation of being willing tools to mischief makers who easily engage the security operatives for self- help.
Additionally, officers or agents of the police who engage in perpetrating self-help should also be made to face disciplinary actions including demotion and even dismissal. This apart from removing the needless friction with the rule of law will go a long way in reducing the dent the perpetrators of self-help has bought to the security agencies in the country.
