Introduction
Can the police arrest you because they are looking for your brother, sister, husband, wife, parent, child or another relative?
No. A person cannot lawfully be arrested merely in place of another person who is suspected of committing an offence.
This is known as substitutional arrest or arrest in lieu.
What is substitutional arrest?
Substitutional arrest occurs when law enforcement officers want to arrest one person who is suspected of committing an offence but, instead of arresting that person, arrest another person in his or her place.
This may happen where the person being sought cannot be found and the police instead arrest the person’s parent, spouse, child, sibling or another relative.
The law does not permit this.
The expression “in lieu” means “instead of” or “in place of”.
In UDEMBA v. NWABUEZE (2016) LPELR-41314(CA) (Pp 44 – 44 Paras D – E), the Court of Appeal, per Ignatius Igwe Agube, JCA, stated:
“Accordingly, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and in line with the definition of the term “in lieu” by Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition at page 558 (see also page 791 of the Seventh Edition) has rightly submitted that it means: “Instead of or in place of: in exchange or return for.”
Therefore, where A is the person suspected of committing an offence but the police arrest B instead because B is related to A, B has been arrested in lieu of A.
The law expressly prohibits arrest in lieu
Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 provides:
“A person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect”.
The same principle is contained in section 36 of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020.
The prohibition is therefore not merely a matter of police procedure. It is a statutory restriction on the power to arrest.
The Supreme Court has now reaffirmed the position
The most recent and authoritative statement comes from the Supreme Court in SMART v. IDIOKITA & ORS (2026) LPELR-83267(SC), pp. 34–35, Paras. B–B.
The case concerned the arrest and detention of the 1st respondent in connection with an offence allegedly committed by his son.
The Supreme Court, per John Inyang Okoro, JSC, stated:
“The position of the law on substitutional arrest is very well established, that effecting an arrest on someone in lieu of a suspect is prohibited. Indeed, Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 provides unequivocally that: “A person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect”. That is to say, criminal responsibility is personal and not transferable. And nobody should be arrested in lieu of a suspect. It therefore amounted to a breach of the 1st Respondent’s fundamental rights to be subjected to recurrent threats of arrest and detention and actual arrest and detention by officers of the Nigerian police on the instigation of the Appellant for an offence suspected to have been committed by his son, which particulars are not on record. In this circumstance, the observations of Ogebe JSC, in the case of Fajemirokun Vs. Commercial Bank (Nig.) Limited (2009) LPELR (1231) echoes, where his Lordship said: “Generally it is the duty of citizens of this country to report cases of commission of crime to the police for their investigation and what happens after such report is entirely the responsibility of the police. The citizens cannot be held culpable for doing their civic duty unless it is shown that it is done mala fide”.”
Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC.
The Supreme Court did not merely state that substitutional arrest is improper. It expressly held that the practice is prohibited, emphasised that criminal responsibility is personal and not transferable, and found that the respondent’s arrest and detention for an offence allegedly committed by his son amounted to a breach of his fundamental rights.
You cannot be arrested because of your child’s alleged offence
The facts in Smart v. Idiokita & Ors are particularly important.
The respondent was subjected to repeated threats of arrest and detention and was actually arrested and detained in connection with an offence suspected to have been committed by his son.
The Supreme Court held that this amounted to a breach of his fundamental rights.
This is significant because it demonstrates that the protection against substitutional arrest applies even where the person being arrested is a close family member of the actual suspect.
A father does not become responsible for his son’s alleged crime.
A mother does not become responsible for her daughter’s alleged crime.
A spouse does not become responsible for the alleged offence of the other spouse.
A sibling does not become responsible for the alleged offence of another sibling.
The principle is that criminal responsibility is personal and cannot be transferred to another person merely because of a family relationship.
The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with the earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal.
In NWOFOR v. KUSA (2025) LPELR-82738(CA), pp. 34–35, Paras. A–A, the Court of Appeal considered a case in which the respondent was arrested and detained in lieu of his brother, Robert Kusa.
The complaint concerned allegations of fraud, theft of property and criminal intimidation against the brother.
The Court held:
“…it was established that the Respondent in this suit was arrested and detained in lieu of his brother (Robert Kusa), the suspect the complaint (fraud, theft of property and criminal intimidation) was lodged against. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, “a person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect” this provision is also upheld under Section 36 of the Police Act 2020. In the instant case, the Respondent was not the subject of the complaint, yet he was arrested because he was related to the suspect which is in contravention of the provisions of the ACJA. I rely on the decision of the Court of Appeal Per Niki Tobi JCA in ACB v. Okonkwo (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 480) 194 where he held that: “There is no law that says that the sin of the son be visited on the mother simply because of that relationship” also the Court reiterated in the case between Akpan v. The State (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1106) 72 that “there is no law that where the offender is unable to be arrested, his relative should be arrested.” This condemns the arbitrariness of arresting kin when the real suspect escapes.”
Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA.
The Court of Appeal therefore applied the statutory prohibition to a situation where a person was arrested simply because of his relationship with the actual suspect.
The Supreme Court has now confirmed the same principle at the highest level.
What if the suspect cannot be found?
The fact that a suspect has disappeared or cannot be located does not give the police the power to arrest another person in his or her place.
The police may continue their investigation and take lawful steps to locate the suspect.
What they cannot lawfully do is reason:
“We cannot find the suspect, so we will arrest his relative.”
That is precisely the kind of substitutional arrest prohibited by section 7 of the ACJA.
The Supreme Court’s decision makes the position particularly clear: criminal responsibility is personal and not transferable.
Can a relative ever be arrested where there is an independent and lawful basis for arresting that person?
Yes.
The prohibition against substitutional arrest does not mean that a relative of a suspect can never be arrested where there is an independent and lawful basis for arresting that person.
For example, if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that the relative personally committed an offence, the relative may be arrested in accordance with the law.
The crucial question is:
Why is this particular person being arrested?
If the answer is that the person personally committed, or is reasonably suspected of having committed, an offence, the arrest may be lawful, subject to the applicable legal requirements.
If the answer is simply that the police want to arrest someone else and cannot find that person, the arrest is substitutional and prohibited.
What if the relative is being arrested to force the suspect to surrender?
That does not make the arrest lawful.
A person cannot lawfully be used as a bargaining chip merely because the police want another person to surrender.
The Supreme Court in Smart v. Idiokita & Ors (supra) considered repeated threats of arrest and detention, as well as actual arrest and detention, of the respondent over an offence allegedly committed by his son.
The Court found that this amounted to a breach of the respondent’s fundamental rights.
Thus, the problem is not limited to a single moment of physical arrest. Repeated threats and actual detention may have serious legal consequences where they are directed at a person because of another person’s alleged offence.
What should you do if you are arrested in place of another person?
If you are arrested because the police are looking for somebody else, you should seek legal assistance promptly.
The circumstances surrounding the arrest should be documented, including:
- who the police were actually looking for;
- your relationship with that person;
- the reason given for your arrest;
- where and when you were arrested;
- where you were detained;
- how long you were detained; and
- whether you were told that your release depended on the suspect reporting to the police.
A lawyer can assess whether the facts disclose a case of substitutional arrest and whether proceedings for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other appropriate remedies may be available.
Conclusion
The law is clear.
You cannot be arrested merely because another person is wanted by the police.
If the police are looking for your son, daughter, spouse, parent, sibling or another person, they cannot simply arrest you in that person’s place.
You are not your relative’s substitute suspect.
Criminal responsibility belongs to the person who allegedly committed the offence. It cannot simply be transferred to an innocent relative because the actual suspect cannot be found.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general legal information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for advice from a qualified Nigerian legal practitioner. The legality of any particular arrest depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable law. Where a person has been arrested or detained, prompt legal advice should be obtained.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.