There is no doubt that capital forms the building blocks for the growth and development of any business venture and indeed personal development.
This capital needed for business or for welfare of an individual may be out of the rich of the person or persons desirous of making use of same.
In such circumstance, the person in need of capital more often than not resorts to borrowing from either a corporate organization like a bank or from friends and other individuals.
More often than not, the good relationship between the parties prior to the transaction go turn bad either because the borrower (debtor) has neglected failed or refused to repay the loan or friendly loan as the case may be.
Sometimes, the debtor may be willing but is incapacitated somewhat in fulfilling the repayment obligation.
In a bid to recover their money the creditors rather taking appropriate legal steps in recovering the money, resort to unlawful means such as intimidation, detention, harassment of the debtor or even confiscation of properties of the debtor.
Only recently, there was a media report, that a nursing mother was detained at a popular Hospital in the South-South because her husband could not offset the bill charged by the hospital for medical services rendered delivery child delivery. According to the report the nursing mother and her baby against their wishes, would remain in the Hospital until they pay fully the bill.
Another unlawful approach resorted to by creditors is the use of thugs, and security operatives to not only arrest but force the debtors to pay back the loans or remain detained.
These methods of approach are definitely unlawful and could attract severe legal consequences. Indeed they violate the fundamental rights of the creditors and the remedy for such infringement lies in aggravated damages.
Failure to pay debt is not a criminal offence and cannot be a subject of police investigation let alone, the law enforcement agent forcing the debtor to pay or sign undertaking to pay.
Similarly, resorting to self help such as intimidation, harassment or confiscation of the debtors property is unlawful and equally attracts punishment under the law.
Whether such resort to unlawful means in attempting to recover debts is borne out ignorance or brazen disregard for due process, the fact remains that it is unlawful, reprehensible and totally unacceptable to apply self help rather than operating within the ambit of the law.
The Courts have never hesitated in faulting this disrespect for the law and due process.
According to the courts when a person engages security operatives or employs thugs to settle a civil matter, both the police officers , the thugs involved and the person that invited them can be sued for breach of fundamental human rights. Where however, a civil matter has some criminal features, Police Officers or other security operatives must restrain themselves to the criminal aspects only while parties should seek proper legal advice on the civil features.
For instance, in the case of MCLAREN V. JENNINGS (2003) FWLR (PT 154) 528, the court held thus;
“The Police is not a debt recovery agency and has no business to dabble into contractual disputes between parties arising from purely civil transactions. When, as in the circumstances of this action, a purely civil matter is reported to the Police, such a person cannot go scot-free as the report ought not to have been made at all since it is not within the purview of Police duties. It is a report made mala fide and he will be equally liable for the action taken by the Police irrespective of whether he actively instigated them or not, since he had no business involving the Police in purely civil matter in the first place. Such conduct which portrays disregard of the law and is aimed at using the coercive powers of the State to punish a contracting party in a purely civil matter ought to be mulcted in exemplary damages. See OKAFOR & ANOR V. AIG POLICE ZONE II ONIKAN & ORS (2019) LPELR- 46505.”
The same proposition of the law has been adumbrated in a plethora of Court’s decisions including KURE v. COP (2020) LPELR-49378(SC) .IBIYEYE V. GOLD (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 659) 1074.
OKAFOR & ANOR V. AIG POLICE ZONE II ONIKAN & ORS (supra) NWADIUGWU v. IGP & ORS (2015) LPELR.
From the point of law, it is clear that failure or inability to pay debt is not a crime but a purely civil matter that can be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction. A party seeking to recover debt should seek legal advice from a legal practitioner on the necessary steps to take.
Similarly, any person subjected to intimidation, harassment, arrests and detention should also seek legal remedy by consulting a legal practitioner who can take legal steps needed for that purpose.
In a democratic society, the rule of law rather than the rule of force should signpost the fulcrum of dispute resolution including debt recovery.
The use of extra judicial means to recover debts or subjecting debtors to arrest, detention or summoning them before juju priests or shrines remain unlawful and punishable by law. Dragging a debtor before shrine or juju priest with a view to forcing the debtor to pay amounts to trial by ordeal which constitutes a punishable crime.
As law abiding citizens, we should always operate within the confines of the law and this includes respecting the rights of others while seeking to give eloquent expressions to your own rights.
