The Inspector General of Police (IGP) has recently taken legal action against Omoyele Sowore, invoking the Cybercrimes Act to press criminal charges against him. The charge alleges that Sowore knowingly spread false information by referring to the IGP as “illegal IGP Kayode Egbetokun.” While this move appears to be an attempt to protect the IGP’s reputation, it could have unintended consequences that place the legality of his own appointment under scrutiny.
At first glance, this may seem like a straightforward defamation case. However, by initiating criminal proceedings, the IGP has inadvertently created an opportunity for legal examination of his own position. The prosecution will now have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, not just that Sowore’s claim was false but also that the IGP’s appointment and continued tenure are in full compliance with relevant laws. This legal battle could potentially expose weaknesses in the process that led to Egbetokun’s appointment, forcing the police leadership to answer tough questions in court.
The case against Sowore will inevitably invite scrutiny into various aspects of the IGP’s appointment and career progression. Several critical issues may arise during cross-examination, including:
Legality of Appointment: Was the IGP’s appointment done strictly in accordance with the Nigerian Constitution and the Police Act, or were any legal steps overlooked?
Force Seniority: Were there higher-ranking officers who were passed over in favor of Egbetokun’s appointment? Promotions within the force typically follow an established process, and any deviation from this will be closely examined.
Qualifications and Career Path: When did the IGP join the force, and does his career trajectory align with the usual standards for appointing an Inspector General? Any inconsistencies could cast doubt on the legitimacy of his appointment.
Tenure and Constitutional Compliance: Does the IGP’s current stay in office fully align with constitutional provisions? Could there be legal interpretations that challenge the validity of his position?
The answers to these questions are not just procedural; they are crucial in determining whether Sowore’s statement was indeed false. Ironically, in trying to protect his own image, the IGP may have exposed himself to deeper legal challenges. Many might argue that a civil lawsuit—where the burden of proof is lower—would have been a more strategic option. Instead, by pursuing a criminal case, the stakes have been significantly raised. Any flaws in the prosecution’s arguments or gaps in evidence could strengthen Sowore’s defense and open a Pandora’s box of legal complications for the IGP.
Beyond the legal ramifications, this case also touches on the broader issue of free speech in Nigeria. The ability to criticize public officials is a cornerstone of democratic governance. Attempting to suppress dissent through criminal prosecution may be seen as an effort to silence opposition and restrict free expression. If the IGP is perceived as using the law to suppress critics, it could further damage public confidence in the Nigeria Police Force and the justice system.
Additionally, this move sets a concerning precedent. Public trust in Nigerian institutions is already fragile, and cases like this can deepen skepticism about the independence of law enforcement. Regardless of the outcome, the optics of an IGP using criminal charges against a critic could have lasting implications for his credibility and that of the institution he represents.
Opatola Victor Esq is a legal practitioner and can be reached at Victor@legalifyattorneys.com.
Join our WhatsApp channel for more updates: Chronicles Reporters.