IGP vs Sowore: Why Egbetokun may be putting his position at risk

BY OPATOLA VICTOR

In a development that has drawn public attention, the inspector-general of police (IGP) has filed criminal charges against Omoyele Sowore under the Cybercrimes Act. The basis of the charges? Sowore referred to the inspector-general as “illegal IGP Kayode Egbetokun,” a claim that the criminal charge alleges that Sowore knows to be false. However, the decision to pursue this legal action raises significant questions—not just about the law, but also about the potential unintended legal consequences for the IGP himself.

At first glance, this case might seem like a straightforward effort to defend the reputation of the country’s top law enforcement officer. But a closer examination reveals that this charge could, paradoxically, place the IGP’s very office under intense legal scrutiny. By initiating this case, he may have unwittingly opened the door to questions about the legality of his appointment and continued stay in office —questions that he will now have to answer in a court of law and prove beyond reasonable doubt and under the fire of intense cross-examination.

The charges against Sowore under the Cybercrimes Act are premised on the assertion that he knowingly spread false information by referring to the IGP Kayode Egbetokun as “illegal”. While the intent may have been to silence criticism and reassert authority, the strategy appears fraught with potential pitfalls. In any criminal proceeding, the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This means the IGP and police legal team must not only demonstrate that Sowore’s statement was false but also provide beyond reasonable doubt that the IGP Kayode Egbetokun’s appointment and continued stay in office comply with all relevant known laws and regulations.

This is where the complications arise. The court proceedings will inevitably open the door to detailed inquiries into the IGP’s career trajectory, the process of his appointment, and the legal framework governing the Nigeria Police Force. Questions that may come up during cross-examination include:

• The legality of the appointment: Was the IGP’s appointment in strict compliance with the constitution and the Police Act? Are there provisions or processes that were overlooked or bypassed?

• Seniority in the force: Is or was there any officer within the Nigeria Police Force who is senior to the IGP and who might have been overlooked in favour of his appointment at the time he became IGP or in any of his previous ranks? Promotions within the force often follow a predictable trajectory, and any deviation from this will definitely be scrutinised.

• The IGP’s qualifications and career path: When did the IGP join the force? How does his career progression align with standard practices for appointing the Inspector General? These questions, while seemingly administrative, could have far-reaching implications.

• Tenure and constitutional compliance: Is the IGP’s current stay in office consistent with constitutional provisions? Could there be any interpretation of the law that undermines the validity of his position?

The answers to these questions are not just important, they are critical to proving that Sowore’s statement was indeed false. Ironically, in seeking to defend his reputation, the IGP has potentially placed himself and his office in a vulnerable position. One might easily argue that the IGP could have opted for a civil suit where the burden to prove has a lesser burden and oscillates, instead of a criminal case. By choosing a criminal case, the IGP has essentially raised the stakes.

Any gap in the evidence or inconsistencies in arguments could favour Sowore’s claim and a can of worms set loose. Worse still, the cross-examination process could bring to light information that may further complicate the IGP’s position, particularly if there are any irregularities in his appointment or tenure. Hopefully, the IGP has deliberated on the implication and likelihood of the court holding that the statement of Sowore is not false and is true and justified, or the failure and inability to prove that the statement of Sowore is false.

This case also raises broader questions about freedom of speech in Nigeria today. Criticism of public officials, especially those in positions of power, is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance. The right to express dissent, however uncomfortable it may be for those in power, is protected under the Nigerian Constitution. By pursuing these charges, the IGP risks being perceived as attempting to stifle dissent and muzzle critical voices. This perception could harm the credibility of both the office of the IGP and the Nigeria Police Force.

Moreover, it could set a worrying precedent. In a society where public trust in institutions is already fragile, cases like this can erode confidence further. The optics of a sitting IGP using criminal charges to silence a critic are unlikely to sit well with the public, regardless of the eventual outcome of the case.

Opatola Victor Esq is a legal practitioner and can be reached at [email protected]