The Nigerian Bar Association, Anaocha Branch, has rejected the explanation offered by the Anambra State Police Command for an encounter between police operatives attached to B-Division, Awka, and bailiffs of the Chief Magistrate Court, Awka, on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, saying the Command’s statement “raises more questions than answers.”
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
In a rejoinder dated 9 October 2026 and signed by its Chairman, Dr. Uzoma Charles Dioha, the branch said the Command’s preliminary explanation — issued on 8 October through its Public Relations Officer, SP Tochukwu Ikenga — concentrated on justifying the presence of police operatives at the scene rather than addressing the central allegation of physical assault, harassment and intimidation of court officials.
“Let us state this without ambiguity: the issue is not whether the police had a right to respond to a distress call. The issue is whether police officers had any lawful justification to physically assault, intimidate or obstruct persons who were carrying out their duties under a warrant of court,” the branch said.
“These are two fundamentally different questions, and no amount of administrative explanation should be allowed to confuse them.”
The branch said it was prepared, for the sake of argument, to accept the Command’s account that its operatives responded to a distress call concerning unidentified persons said to be causing a disturbance at a premises.
“Does a distress call automatically confer upon police officers the authority to physically assault the persons they meet at the scene?” it asked. “Does the fact that a person has not yet identified himself justify his being manhandled by law enforcement officers? At what point did the duty to investigate become a licence to intimidate or apply unlawful force?”
“The Police Command must understand that the constitutional rights of citizens do not disappear simply because police officers are responding to a complaint.”
It cited section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the dignity of the human person and prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment; section 8 of the Anti-Torture Act 2017, which recognises the right of a person alleging torture to complain and have the matter promptly and impartially examined; and the Nigeria Police Act 2020, which requires police powers to be exercised lawfully and consistently with the protection of fundamental rights.
“We therefore challenge the Police Command to explain the legal basis for any physical assault or excessive force depicted in the circulating video,” it said.
“A police officer may lawfully make inquiries, but the power to question is not the power to brutalise.”
The branch said it did not dispute that a video recording may fail to capture everything preceding or following an encounter, but rejected the suggestion that this disposed of the complaint.
“The fact that a video may be incomplete does not automatically invalidate what is visibly recorded. An incomplete video can still provide evidence of misconduct,” it said.
It objected particularly to the Command’s characterisation of the encounter as a disagreement between police operatives and persons subsequently identified as court bailiffs.
“We respectfully submit that describing an alleged physical assault as a disagreement risks trivialising a serious complaint,” the branch said. “An allegation of assault cannot be answered merely by saying there was a disagreement.”
The branch described as “perhaps the most troubling aspect” of the Command’s statement its suggestion that the Division had not been approached for security assistance before the enforcement exercise began.
“Since when did prior notification to a police division become a universal condition precedent to the execution of every court judgment?” it asked.
“The authority of a court bailiff to execute a valid warrant is derived from the court and the applicable law, not from the personal approval of a Divisional Police Officer.”
It accepted that police assistance may be necessary or desirable in particular circumstances, and that applicable procedures must be followed where it is required, but said the absence of a prior request “does not, without more, confer upon police officers the power to assault court officials or arbitrarily terminate the execution of a valid judicial warrant.”
Citing section 287(3) of the Constitution, which establishes the obligation to enforce judicial decisions, the branch called on the Command to identify the specific legal provision it considered to have required prior police notification in this exercise.
“The police may provide security for the execution of court orders, but they do not thereby become a superior authority over the court that issued the warrant,” it said.
The branch disclosed an allegation it said the Command’s statement had not addressed.
It said it had been informed by the Chief Bailiff, Mr. Nweje Francis, that the officer who identified himself as the Divisional Police Officer of B-Division directed the bailiffs to discontinue the execution and proceed to the police station.
“This allegation is conspicuously absent from the Police Command’s explanation,” it said, and put four questions:
“Did any police officer direct the court bailiffs to stop executing the warrant? Was any attempt made to compel the bailiffs to accompany police officers to the station? Were additional police personnel summoned to the scene, and if so, for what purpose? Was the warrant of execution examined before any attempt was made to interrupt the exercise?”
“The police possess no general appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction,” the branch said. “Where there are genuine concerns about the validity or manner of execution of a warrant, the appropriate legal procedures must be followed.”
“A police station cannot become an alternative court of appeal where judicial warrants are suspended at the discretion of police officers.”
The branch said it recognised that officers have a statutory duty to respond to distress calls, maintain public peace and investigate suspected offences, and that they may legitimately request identification from persons found in circumstances requiring investigation.
“However, none of these powers is unlimited. An explanation of why police officers arrived at a scene is not necessarily a justification for everything they subsequently did,” it said.
“The fact that an officer was lawfully present does not mean that every action taken by that officer was lawful. That distinction is fundamental to police accountability.”
The branch called on the Commissioner of Police, Anambra State, to take eight steps.
They are: to conduct a transparent and impartial investigation into the allegations of physical assault, intimidation and obstruction; to identify the operatives involved, including the officer who allegedly presented himself as the Divisional Police Officer of B-Division; to obtain and preserve all available video recordings, operational reports, distress-call records and statements from the affected court officials and police personnel; to establish whether any officer physically assaulted a bailiff and, if so, the legal justification for the force used; to investigate the allegation that officers attempted to stop the execution of a court warrant and compel the officials to proceed to the station; to ensure appropriate disciplinary action and, where the evidence establishes an offence, prosecution; to tender an appropriate apology to the affected court officials and the judiciary if the allegations are substantiated; and to issue clear operational directives to police formations throughout the state on the lawful treatment of court officials executing judicial processes.
It also called on the leadership of the judiciary in Anambra State to take institutional interest in the matter.
The branch said the significance of the incident went beyond the individuals involved.
“Today, it is a court bailiff executing a warrant. Tomorrow, it could be a lawyer attending to a client’s case, which we have also witnessed at some point in our various jurisdictions as bar leaders. The next day, it could be an ordinary citizen attempting to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right,” it said.
“When the law is disregarded by those sworn to enforce it, the very foundation of justice is threatened.”
“We refuse to accept a society where allegations of police brutality are casually explained away as misunderstandings or disagreements without a thorough examination of the evidence. We equally refuse to accept a situation where court officials must seek the discretionary approval of police officers before performing duties lawfully assigned to them by the courts.”
The branch said its position was not an attack on the Nigeria Police Force as an institution, and acknowledged “the many responsible police officers who perform their duties with discipline, courage and professionalism.”
“The uniform of a police officer is a symbol of public trust, not a shield against accountability,” it said.
The branch welcomed the Command’s indication that an assessment of the incident had commenced, but insisted that the investigation must go beyond explaining the arrival of operatives at the scene.
“Was any court bailiff physically assaulted? If yes, who assaulted him and why? What lawful authority justified such conduct? Will those found responsible be held accountable?” it asked.
“Until these questions are satisfactorily addressed, the Command’s preliminary explanation cannot reasonably be regarded as a complete response to the allegations.”
It said it would continue to follow developments and “pursue appropriate lawful and institutional avenues to ensure accountability.”
“The law must not be intimidated by those entrusted to enforce it. A court order is not a suggestion. A court bailiff is not a criminal merely because he is executing a judgment. A distress call is not a licence for police brutality. And a police press statement is not a substitute for accountability.”
The rejoinder was signed by Dr. Uzoma Charles Dioha, Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Anaocha Branch, described in the statement as “The Family Bar.”
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
