Nigerians and jungle justice

By Yemi Ademowo Johnson

The rumble in the Nigerian political jungle, most especially the Appeal Court judgments, seems to have blanketed every other issue that needs urgent atten tion in the polity. While not controverting Nkrumah’s saying of “seeking first the political kingdom”, a discerning mind must likewise know that security and justice are also vital as politics. One of such issues that begs for urgent attention, and if need be, legislative intervention is a form of extra-judicial killing known as jungle justice.

A scene in the Shakespearean epic play, Julius Caesar, gives a classic example of what the improper management of our five minutes psychiatric disorder could do to our sense of sane judgment. In the scene, a “perverted” mob having listened to Mark Anthony’s ode at the funeral of Caesar seized Cinna, and days after; they lynched him only to realize that he didn’t kill Caesar. But the irrevocable harm had already been done. This is a typical example of what is commonplace in many Nigerian cities and towns; the record of the Nigerian Police Force in various divisions across Nigeria speaks volume of this development. Newspapers’ headlines say it all: “Three lynched in Lagos for alleged theft”, “Five burnt alive for robbery”, “Irate youths set suspected witch ablaze”, “Teenager roasted for snatching phone set”. Guilty or not, it is undeniable that countless persons have been sent to the land beyond for being suspected of having committed one offence or the other.

If anyone is still in the dark as to the essence of writing on this topic, let’s define “jungle justice” for more clarification. Jungle justice is a form of extra-judicial killing wherein a suspect on apprehension (or being caught) is condemned to death either by beating or burning. In some cases, some are not even caught in the act but “merely suspected” to have partaken or have the intention of partaking in the act. “Instant judgment” which in most cases is death penalty is the goal of jungle justice. The mob therefore becomes the arrester, the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner. And because it is not easy to combine the duties involved in these roles without conflict, the last role, the executioner role, is prioritized over others. This usually makes the “judgment” very fast to deliver; within ten minutes, (with total disregard for judicial jargons such as fair hearing, procedural objections and cross examination), the judgment is passed and executed without option of appeal. This, undoubtedly, is man’s cruelty against fellow man!

The question is: why turn to instant judgment when there are governmental agencies to take care and possibly prosecute arrested suspects? This question is asked on the premise that it is not wrong for responsible citizens to apprehend suspected criminals. But having the duty to assist the law enforcement agency in arresting does not transcend to prosecution; citizens are simply to arrest and hand over such persons to the agency in charge of the offence for possible prosecution. They are not to beat to death nor set ablaze the suspect. One is, however, mindful of the opinion that is rife in the public arena that policemen are not trustworthy.

Take the case of a middle age man caught with his group while robbing a family and handed over to the police by a popular militia group in Lagos. Two weeks later, the same man was caught while attempting to escape after robbing a whiteman three streets from the last operation. Unfortunately for him, the mob violently resisted the police attempt to rescue him from their “blood thirsty” fury. He was decorated with two unused tyres, bathed with two litres of premium motor spirit (petrol) and then set ablaze. Although the mob that perpetrated this act may appear justified based on the fact that he was earlier spared of the dastard treatment, the fact remains that he should not have been killed! While he should not be spared of maximum shishi (serious beating), if caught in the act, he should not be burnt. Setting him ablaze, or beating him to death, does not correct him but rather it is a kind of vengeance. And since most people agree that the goal of punishment should not be vengeance but correction or reformation, it then follows that jungle justice is wrong.

Two factors are clearly responsible for the prevalence of the act (as could be gleaned from the case cited above): lack of trust in the police and peoples’ frustration. The Nigeria Police pride themselves as the friend of the public but the public seem not to have the feeling of friendship towards the police. Policemen are seen as nothing but a paragon of corruption. This unhealthy feeling of distrust is the result of the dealings of the public with the police; the countless unjustifiable arrests, victimization and prosecution of innocent citizens while criminals walk freely and enjoy police protection. The distrust in the “men in black”, as the Nigeria policemen are erroneously called because of their black uniform, results in lack of public confidence in the manner they handle criminal cases and consequently the people evolve an instant judgment scheme, that is, jungle justice, to counter police corrupt handling of criminal cases. The frustrations experienced by the public in the hands of dare devil robbers and the inability of the law enforcement agents to adequately tackle the cases, have been proffered as the second reason for the resolve to mob justice. According to the argument, the distrust is not a sole factor but also, in some cases, the incapacitation/helplessness of the law enforcement agents. More so, it has been discovered that it is mostly the economically frustrated citizens around, like the unemployed persons and the street urchins, a.k.a Area Boys, that have been battered in the search for daily bread, that vent their anger on the suspect. It then becomes an avenue for such person to ease off the bottled frustration in them.

As plausible as the two reasons might sound, both seem not to have considered innocent victims of the dastard act. Besides, the suspects are also assumed innocent by the Nigerian legal system until found guilty “by a competent court of law”. Whether deliberately shunned or ignorantly done, the law of the land must not be trampled upon for any reason. This is the dictate of the rule of law. Therefore, the law should be allowed to take its course in both directions: on the suspects and the irate mob. The suspect according to the law is innocent, even if caught in the act, until found guilty. So be it! Whoever pronounced him/her guilty in act or deed outside of a “competent court of law” violates the law; and since law is no respecter of persons or group, such should be prosecuted accordingly; such person or group of persons should be charged with manslaughter or complicity in murder.

Our polity surely craves for sanity and the only way we can instill some sanity is to, at least, tame the rampaging increase in mob justice in our polity by enacting a law specifically banning and recommending appropriate jail term/fine to deter the perpetrators. Frankly speaking, the culprits or suspects have wrecked havocs on their victims but since two wrongs don’t make a right, burning or beating them to death surely is no panacea to the problem. Rather, the Nigerian government should be more responsible in providing jobs and opportunities for the commonplace idle hands, the potential devil’s workshops, which can readily become either the suspect or a member of the “mad mob”.

Johnson is Editor, YouthSpeak, Belgium