One of the serious dents on our criminal justice delivery system is the ugly phenomenon of security operatives unleashing pains and sufferings on crime suspects as a means of extracting information from them. A preponderance of this unlawful practice is perpetrated by the police who by and large have the responsibility to arrest ad investigate persons suspected of committing criminal offences.
Unfortunately, this brutish, crude and inhuman treatment has extended to other security and para military agencies who take delight in inflicting injuries and pains on suspects.
Black’s Law dictionary 9th edition at page1627 defines torture as “The infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure”
The Anti-Torture ACT, 2017 which prohibits all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments also prescribes penalties for such acts. According to section2 the Act, Torture includes physical torture such as cruel, inhuman degrading treatment which causes pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one more parts of the body,systemic beatings head banging, blind folding, stripping suspects naked being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily position, mental and psychological tortue among others.
Similarly, section 8 (1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2015 and its variants in the 36 states of the federation in vehement prohibition of torture clearly provides that “A Suspect shall(a) be accorded humane treatment having regard to his right to the dignity of his person; and (b) not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” This is impari materia with the constitutional provision for the right to the dignity of human person.
Indeed, section 34 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) in clear and unambiguous terms states that “Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person and accordingly no person be subjected to torture, or to inhuman and degrading treatment”
Despite these clear constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting torture of any kind, deliberate, unmitigated, aggravated, cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment have continued to reign supreme in detention facilities.
Cases of extra judicial killings, suspects being subjected to physical harm, violence, threat or intimidation were very common.
Torture is deemed committed when an act by which pain and suffering whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted to obtain information or confession from the victim or a third person, punish him for an act he or a third person has committed or suspected to have committed or intimidate him for same see section 2(1) of the Act.
The courts are inundated with cases of police brutality, torture, inhuman and degrading treatments meted out to persons held in custody or placed under police investigation.
In Effionayi & Ors v State (2009) 8 ACLR. pg.1-17, the 4th accused before being charged to court with eight others for conspiracy to commit murder and murder was during police interrogation, hand cuffed, his legs folded back and tied together with his hands. A pipe was then put through the legs and the hands and the accused was lifted up and placed on two ‘Y’ shaped pipes stuck into the floor. As if this was not enough, his hosts beat him with cutlasses and one of them slapped the suspect’s testicles with cutlass making him to collapse. This was done by the police to forcefully make the suspect sign a statement which he did not make voluntarily.
In condemning this act of torture, extreme cruelty and disregard for human dignity the court per Idahosa J @ pg.17 paras.25-35. held “On the whole and after due consideration, I am satisfied that Exhibit A was not made voluntarily by the 4th accused or was not signed voluntarily by the 4th accused.
In a similar case Osamwonyi v State (2009) 8 ACLR, pg.18-28 @ paras 20-25, Idahosa .J. again rejected a statement which was a product of torture and aggravated in human treatment.
The accused as suspect in police detention was forced to make a confessional statement at the state C.I.D. in Benin City before he was charged to court for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery.
During police investigation/interrogation, the suspect before being charged to court was taken to a room at S C .I.D UPcalled juju House where his legs were bound together and he was suspended on a pole while the Investigating Police Officer used iron rod to poke him all over his body inflicting severe bodily harm.
Justice Idahosa did not hesitate to conclude that such statement founded on torture remained on rejected as held ..”I am inclined to take the view that Exhibit A was made by the accused in the circumstances he described. Accordingly, I hold and find that the confessional statement Exhibit A was not made voluntarily by the accused and it is hereby rejected”
There are many more cases of the resort to torture by the overzealous police and other security operatives to forcefully and in degrading manner obtain information from suspects and more often than not the perpetrators go unscathed.
Only in very rare cases do victims of such inhuman treatment approach courts for remedy in which case they become entitled to damages and apologies and nothing more.
Even when such act of torture leads to death of victims some perpetrators still escape the wrath of the law.
However, under the Anti -torture Act 2017, it is no longer business as usual as prpetrators of torture now risk up to 25 years jail term on conviction while while officers who issues order to torture a victim for whatever purpose is equallyliable as the persons who participate in inflicting the torture .see section 7 (1) (2) of the Act
Section 3(1)forbids any justification for torture as it clearly states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture”
Apart from the victim of torture, any interested party on his behalf may seek legal aid on his behalf to ventilate the grievance
This is adumbrated in section 5 of the Act thus “Any person who has suffered torture and other cruel, inhum and degrading treatment or punishment or any, or any interested party on his behalf; may seek legal assistance in proper handling and filing of the complaint from the human rights Commission and non governmental organizations and private persons.
It is however disturbing that despite the coming into operation in 2017, of the Anti-torture Act, trigger happy and cruel security operatives still take delight in subjecting suspects to serious acts of torture with reckless abandon
This is perhaps people are not aware of the remedy under the Anti-torture Act or not willing to seek remedy therein.
It is not too late to invoke the law to ventilate such grievances. Victims or interested persons on their behalf should seek legal advice from their lawyers whenever tortured by such unscrupulous security operatives.
For the security operatives who derive joy in torturing suspects in their custody for any reason, it is time to ply such trade elsewhere or risk 25 years jail term and indeed murder charge if the torture leads to victim’s death.
