By: Christian Magnus Beimuna Amara Esq.
The police play an essential role in every society. Their primary responsibility is to maintain law and order, prevent and detect crime, protect lives and property, and ensure public safety. They are entrusted with significant powers, including the authority to arrest, detain, investigate, and use reasonable force where necessary. These powers are not privileges but legal responsibilities granted to enable officers to serve and protect the public within the boundaries established by law.
However, serious concerns arise when police officers act beyond the limits of their lawful authority. When policing moves from legitimate law enforcement into unnecessary interference in private affairs, citizens begin to question not only the conduct of individual officers but also the effectiveness of the systems established to hold them accountable.
This brings us to a fundamental question: Who polices the police?
In many jurisdictions, concerns have been raised about police involvement in matters that fall outside their core mandate of crime prevention and criminal investigation. Instead of focusing on issues involving genuine criminal conduct, officers are sometimes drawn into disputes that are essentially civil in nature.
Commercial disagreements, contractual disputes, unpaid debts, landlord-tenant disagreements, and family matters often find their way into police stations. In some cases, citizens report being summoned, threatened with arrest, or detained over disputes that should ordinarily be resolved through civil courts or other legal mechanisms.
The danger is clear: criminal law should never be used as a tool for debt recovery or as a means of pressuring one party in a private dispute. When state authority is used to influence civil obligations, the distinction between law enforcement and private interests becomes dangerously blurred.
Refusal of Bail and Unlawful Detention
One of the most serious concerns surrounding police conduct is the alleged refusal to grant bail in circumstances where the law permits release. In most legal systems, police officers have limited authority to detain suspects while investigations continue. However, such powers are subject to constitutional and statutory safeguards.
Where a person is detained beyond the legally prescribed period without being brought before a court, fundamental rights may be violated. Detention must never become a form of punishment before trial. The principle that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty requires that restrictions on liberty must be lawful, reasonable, and necessary.
Unfortunately, some citizens experience prolonged detention due to administrative delays, pressure from influential complainants, or directives from senior officials. Such situations undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Problem of “Orders from Above”
A recurring concern in discussions about police misconduct is the justification that certain actions were carried out based on “orders from above.”
While discipline and hierarchy are important features of police organizations, the rule of law requires that officers must not obey unlawful instructions simply because they come from a superior authority. The ultimate duty of every public officer is to the law, not to individuals, political interests, or institutional convenience.
History has shown that many abuses of power occur when individuals abandon personal responsibility and rely solely on the excuse that they were following orders.
The Need for Effective Complaint and Redress Mechanisms
A major source of public frustration is the belief that complaints against police officers often fail to produce meaningful outcomes.
Citizens may face several challenges, including difficulty in filing complaints, lack of independent investigations, fear of retaliation, delays in disciplinary processes and limited transparency regarding outcomes.
When people lose confidence that complaints will be fairly investigated, trust in law enforcement declines. Accountability systems must therefore be accessible, independent, transparent, and effective.
Police powers are created and defined by law. Officers cannot exercise powers that have not been legally granted to them. However, concerns frequently arise when police officers attempt to negotiate private settlements, compel parties to compromise, or make decisions on disputes that belong before the courts.
The police are investigators and law enforcers, not judges. Their responsibility is to gather evidence, investigate suspected crimes, and initiate appropriate legal action. Determining civil liability and resolving contractual disputes are matters generally reserved for courts and other lawful dispute-resolution mechanisms.
When police officers assume powers outside their mandate, they weaken the principles of legal certainty and institutional separation.
One of the most controversial examples of alleged police overreach is the use of criminal allegations, such as obtaining by false pretences or fraudulent conversion, in disputes that are fundamentally civil matters.
Not every unpaid debt amounts to a criminal offence.
There is an important distinction between civil debt and criminal fraud:
A civil debt occurs when a person fails to fulfill a contractual obligation, such as repaying a loan, delivering goods, or making payment under an agreement. Such matters are generally addressed through civil litigation, arbitration, or other lawful recovery processes.
Fraud involves deliberate deception, dishonesty, or criminal intent from the beginning. The prosecution must establish that the accused intentionally misled another person to gain an unlawful benefit.
The inability to repay a debt or failure to fulfill a contract does not automatically amount to fraud. Using criminal procedures merely to force payment of debts creates a serious risk of abuse.
The police should prevent and investigate crime, protect lives and property, maintain public order, enforce lawful court decisions and assist in the administration of justice.
The police should not act as debt collectors, determine civil liability, force private settlements, detain citizens beyond legal limits, carry out unlawful instructions and exercise powers not provided by law.
Respecting these boundaries is essential for protecting human rights and maintaining public confidence in law enforcement institutions.
How Do We Hold Police Accountable?
In a constitutional democracy, accountability is achieved not through revenge or self-help, but through strong institutions and legal safeguards.
Effective mechanisms include independent police complaints authorities, judicial oversight, constitutional remedies, parliamentary supervision, human rights institutions, civil society monitoring, professional disciplinary systems and independent courts.
The law must remain supreme over both ordinary citizens and those entrusted with enforcing it.
For many victims of abuse, delays in achieving accountability may create the feeling that justice can only come through divine intervention. However, a democratic society is built on the principle that legal institutions must provide remedies for violations committed in this world.
Citizens should not be forced to rely only on hope for future justice when constitutional and legal mechanisms exist to address wrongdoing. Courts, oversight bodies, and accountability institutions are created to correct abuses, protect rights, and ensure fairness.
Faith may provide comfort, but justice requires functioning institutions capable of delivering accountability.
The true test of the rule of law is not merely how effectively the police control citizens, but how effectively society ensures that the police themselves remain accountable under the law.
The police are essential guardians of public safety, but their authority must always operate within legal boundaries. The Constitution, courts, independent oversight institutions, and an informed citizenry must serve as the ultimate safeguards against abuse of power.
The question remains: Who polices the police? The answer must always be: the law itself.
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, Christian Magnus Beimuna Amara Esq., and do not necessarily represent the official position, editorial views, or policies of A-Z Newspaper.