TANI OLOHUN: WHY OYO CP’S INTERVENTION IS NOT “AIDING AND ABETTING” – gistlife

Human Rights Foundation Faults Criminalisation of Police De-escalation, Demands Due Process

The controversy surrounding the attempted arrest of popular Isese advocate, Abdulazeez Adegbola, popularly known as Tani Olohun, in Ibadan has taken a fresh legal dimension, with the Ojoge-Daniel Human Rights Foundation, JAFETO-E Centre, warning against equating police de-escalation with aiding and abetting. The Foundation said the issue should be determined strictly by law, evidence, territorial jurisdiction and constitutional due process, rather than public sentiment.

In a public-interest intervention signed by Chief Olawale Joseph Ojoge-Daniel, Esq., the Foundation argued that the mere fact that the arrest was not completed could not, by itself, establish criminal liability against the Oyo State Commissioner of Police. According to the Foundation, any allegation of aiding and abetting must be supported by evidence of criminal intent, intentional assistance, conspiracy or deliberate obstruction of justice.

The Foundation maintained that the existence of an arrest warrant does not give police officers unlimited authority to execute it in disregard of established procedure. While acknowledging that interstate execution of warrants may be legally permissible, it stressed that such operations must still respect territorial jurisdiction, police coordination, judicial safeguards and public safety. It further questioned reports that the visiting officers may not have adequately coordinated the operation with the relevant Oyo State police formation before attempting the arrest.

According to the Foundation, if an interstate operation becomes confrontational and threatens public safety, the Commissioner of Police has a responsibility to intervene and prevent escalation. It described a tactical withdrawal as potentially an act of responsible police command and de-escalation, rather than evidence that an officer was helping a suspect escape. “A lawful warrant must be lawfully executed,” the Foundation stressed.

On the jurisdictional controversy, the group urged Nigerians to avoid simplistic arguments, particularly because the allegations reportedly involve online publications. It said internet accessibility does not automatically confer universal jurisdiction, adding that the proper legal questions are what offence was allegedly committed, what its statutory ingredients are, and where those ingredients occurred. Ultimately, it said, the determination of jurisdiction belongs to the courts.

The Foundation also warned against allowing the religious dimension of the matter to overshadow constitutional principles. It stressed that freedom of religion and expression do not provide immunity from criminal law, but equally, religious indignation cannot replace proof of a legally established offence. “The police must enforce the law, not theology,” it declared, noting that constitutional protection must apply equally to traditionalists, Muslims, Christians, journalists, police officers and ordinary citizens.

The Foundation, while stressing that nobody has a right to assault police officers or resist a lawful arrest, insisted that neither the suspect nor the police are above the law. It therefore called for restraint, evidence-based investigation and judicial determination rather than premature criminal labelling. “A tactical withdrawal is not automatically an escape. De-escalation is not automatically obstruction. Procedural insistence is not automatically complicity,” it said, urging all parties to allow the rule of law to prevail. “Fiat justitia ruat caelum—let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

CHIEF OLAWALE JOSEPH OJOGE-DANIEL, ESQ.
Public Affairs Analyst | Human Rights Activist
CEO/Co-Founder, Ojoge-Daniel Human Rights Foundation, JAFETO-E Centre

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS