Introduction
A person who reports a suspected crime to the Police does not, merely by making that report, become responsible for the subsequent arrest, detention or investigation of the person reported.
This is an important principle in Nigerian law.
Citizens have a right, and indeed a civic duty, to report suspected criminal conduct to law enforcement agencies. Once a complaint is made, the Police have a corresponding statutory responsibility to investigate the allegation and determine what action should be taken.
The critical question is therefore not simply whether a person reported another person to the Police.
The critical question is whether the report was made bona fide or mala fide, and whether the complainant did anything beyond merely making the report that actively caused or procured the person’s arrest, detention or prosecution.
Citizens have a duty to report suspected crime
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed this principle in Ekanem & Ors v. Ita & Ors (2021) LPELR-56072(CA), at pp. 44, paras. C-D where MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA,stated:
“Every citizen has a civic duty to report crime to the police and the pertinent point to consider is whether such report is done bonafide or mala fide.”
The principle is straightforward.
The law does not expect citizens to keep silent when they honestly believe that a crime has been committed. Reporting suspected criminal conduct to the appropriate law enforcement authority is itself a legitimate civic act.
The fact that the Police subsequently investigate the complaint does not transform the complainant into a law enforcement officer.
What happens after the report is ordinarily the responsibility of the Police
This principle was stated by the Supreme Court in Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank (Credit Lyonnais) Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588, and was expressly relied upon by the Court of Appeal in Nduka v. Obiefuna (2023) LPELR-60845 (CA) at pp. 16-17, paras. F-E.
The Court of Appeal stated:
“This Court has variously held that every citizen has a right to report to the Police where he has the honest belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. See UDO & ORS V ESSIEN & ORS (2015) 5 NWLR PT 1451, 83 AT 103 – 104, PARAS F – B, SEED VEST MICROFINANCE BANK PLC & ANOR V OGUNSINA & ORS (2016) and ATHANIGIUS V EWA & ORS (2015). In the case of FAJEMIROKUN V CB NIG LTD (2009) 5 NWLR, PT. 1135, the Apex Court seemed to have settled this matter when it held per Ogebe, JSC thus: “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 was done MALAFIDE.””
per PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, JCA.
The Supreme Court’s position, as reproduced by the Court of Appeal, is particularly important.
A citizen does not ordinarily control what happens after a criminal complaint has been lodged. The Police must exercise their own statutory powers and discretion.
Consequently, where a person makes a genuine report and the Police independently investigate and take action, the complainant cannot ordinarily be held culpable merely because the investigation eventually results in the arrest of the person reported.
The Police have a corresponding duty to investigate
The right and duty of the citizen to report suspected crime corresponds with the Police’s statutory responsibility to investigate complaints.
This was recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Abubakar v. Obidiukwu & Anor (2025) LPELR-82054(CA).
The Court stated:
“This Court is in agreement with learned Appellant’s Counsel that every citizen has a right and in fact, a duty, under the law, to report any infraction of the law or commission or suspicious commission of a crime to the Police and the Police too have a corresponding right and duty to investigate the complaint in the cause of their statutory duty to detect and fight crime.”
per FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, JCA, at pp. 21-26, paras. F-F.
The Court went further and explained that once a complaint is lodged, it is for the Police to determine what action should be taken.
It relied on FCMB v. Chief Ita Onoyom-Ette (2008) 22 WRN 62 at 70-71, where the Court stated:
“It is the duty as well as the right of every citizen to bring to the notice of the Police either a report or specific complaint against persons who are suspected or alleged to have committed offence. It is a matter for the Police to decide what action they should take on the report or complaint.”
This is the dividing line.
A citizen reports.
The Police investigate.
The Police decide what lawful action to take.
The complainant does not thereby acquire the Police’s statutory powers or become responsible for every subsequent step taken by the Police.
A complainant is not automatically liable because the suspect was arrested
The fact that an arrest follows a complaint does not, by itself, establish that the complainant unlawfully caused the arrest.
In Nduka v. Obiefuna (supra), the Court of Appeal made the position clear: citizens who honestly report suspected crime cannot be held culpable merely because the Police subsequently act on the complaint.
The principle is especially important in fundamental rights claims.
A suspect may feel aggrieved because an investigation resulted in an arrest or detention. But the mere fact that another person initially reported the suspected crime does not automatically establish that the complainant violated the suspect’s fundamental rights.
The circumstances surrounding the complaint and the conduct of the complainant must be examined.
But there is an important qualification: the report must be bona fide
The protection is not unlimited.
A person cannot deliberately fabricate a criminal allegation and then escape responsibility simply by saying, “I only reported the matter to the Police.”
That is why Ekanem v. Ita (supra) emphasised whether the report was made bonafide or mala fide.
A genuine report is fundamentally different from a malicious complaint designed to cause an innocent person to be arrested.
The courts therefore examine the complainant’s conduct and intention.
Was the person genuinely reporting suspected criminal conduct?
Or was the person deliberately using the Police as an instrument to harass, intimidate, punish or settle a private dispute with another person?
That distinction can determine liability.
Mere reporting is different from actively procuring an arrest
This distinction is perhaps the most important point for anyone dealing with a claim arising from an arrest following a complaint.
The Court of Appeal addressed it directly in Unongu v. Tyoban (2025) LPELR-81265(CA).
The Court stated:
“My lords, it needs only to be reiterated that in law, the mere placing or making of a report or information of the suspected commission of a crime by a victim or any citizen of this country at or to the Law Enforcement Agencies, including the Police, neither ground the ingredient of malicious prosecution nor of infringement of fundamental right to liberty and freedom of movement if the Police acting on the complaint finds reasonable cause to arrest and detain the person. Thus, for it to amount to either malicious prosecution or infringement of fundamental right against the person who made the report to the Police, it must be shown that the person had acted more than the mere laying of report at the Police and was actively instrumental to the arrest, detention and or torture of the Applicant by the Police, failing which such a claim must fail. In the instant case, the evidence points positively and creditably toward the allegation by the Respondent that the Appellant played more active role in instigating, encouraging and ensuring the arrest, detention and eventual failed prosecution of the Respondent, and I so firmly hold. See Asua V. Tofi (2001) FWLR (Pt. 72) 2054 @ p. 2063.”
per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA, at pp. 35-36, paras. F-E.
This decision provides the practical test.
Mere reporting is one thing. Active involvement in securing the arrest or detention is another.
A person who merely provides information to the Police may be protected while a person who goes further and becomes actively instrumental in causing the arrest, detention or other unlawful treatment of the person reported may, depending on the facts, be exposed to liability.
The Police must still conduct appropriate investigation
There is also a corresponding responsibility on the Police.
The fact that a citizen has a right to report a suspected crime does not mean that the Police should automatically arrest every person named or implicated in a complaint without conducting appropriate preliminary investigation.
The Court of Appeal addressed this point in Abucoop Microfinance Bank Ltd v. Okeuhie & Ors (2024) LPELR-61738(CA).
The Court stated:
“I think I need to reiterate, in law, every Nigerian citizen has a duty to report a suspected criminal offence to the Police for investigation and prosecution, if the Police so decide at the conclusion of their investigation. It is also very important to note that arrest and/or detention by the Police is part and parcel of the investigation processes. However, the only caveat, and which the Courts always insist on, is that before an arrest and/or detention is carried out, there should be some form of discreet or preliminary investigation or processing to see if there be some prima facie evidence of the commission of the alleged offence. This will obviate the practice whereby citizens are arrested first even before there is any evidence suggesting at least prima facie the commission of the alleged offence, save where the person is caught in action real time while committing the alleged offence. See Chief Sunday Effiong V. Essien & Ors (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1451) 83.”
per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA, at pp. 52-53, paras. F-E.
This qualification is important because the protection afforded to a complainant should not be confused with an unrestricted licence for the Police to arrest without proper basis.
There are therefore two separate questions.
The first is whether the citizen was entitled to make the complaint.
The second is whether the Police acted lawfully after receiving it.
A complainant may have acted entirely lawfully in making the report even where the Police subsequently act unlawfully.
A complainant does not become responsible for the entire investigation
The decision in Abubakar v. Obidiukwu (supra) at pp. 21-26, paras. F-F is particularly instructive on this point.
The Court considered a situation where the complainant reported a fraudulent transaction, following which the Police invited another person for interrogation.
The Court found that the complainant had done nothing wrong by lodging the complaint and emphasised that the Police were exercising their statutory investigative powers.
The Court stated:
“As far as this Court is concerned, the Appellant practically did nothing wrong in lodging a complaint with the Police against fraudulent transaction, which deprived him of his truckload of cement.”
The Court further recognised that the Police have discretion in investigating suspected crime and that the invitation of a person connected with the transaction could form part of that investigation.
This illustrates why the identity of the complainant alone is insufficient to establish liability.
The court must examine what the complainant actually did.
When can the complainant cross the line?
A complainant may potentially become exposed to liability where the evidence establishes conduct going beyond an ordinary report.
Depending on the facts, this may include situations where the complainant:
- knowingly makes a false allegation;
- deliberately supplies fabricated evidence;
- falsely identifies an innocent person as the perpetrator;
- manipulates or pressures law enforcement authorities to arrest a particular person;
- actively instigates or procures the arrest or detention;
- interferes improperly with the investigation;
- or participates in conduct designed to ensure that an innocent person is arrested, detained or prosecuted.
The precise legal consequence will depend on the cause of action and the evidence.
For example, the requirements for establishing malicious prosecution are not identical to those for establishing false imprisonment or a breach of fundamental rights.
The important point is that the courts do not simply ask, “Who made the complaint?”
They ask what the complainant did and whether the complainant acted in good faith.
The law protects genuine complainants without protecting malicious conduct
There is a sound public policy behind this approach.
Crime cannot effectively be detected if citizens are afraid to report suspected offences because they believe that any subsequent arrest will automatically make them personally liable.
The law therefore recognises the civic importance of reporting suspected crime.
At the same time, the law cannot permit a person to manufacture allegations and deliberately use law enforcement authorities to settle personal disputes.
The distinction between the two situations is therefore essential.
A genuine complainant should not be punished simply because the Police investigated the complaint.
But a person who deliberately and actively manipulates the criminal justice process against another person cannot necessarily hide behind the fact that the Police physically carried out the arrest.
What should a person do when reporting a suspected crime?
The safest approach is straightforward.
A person making a criminal complaint should:
- State the facts honestly. Report what the person actually knows or reasonably suspects.
- Distinguish facts from assumptions. Where something is only suspected, it should be presented as such.
- Provide available evidence. Documents, messages, transaction records and other relevant materials should be supplied where appropriate.
- Avoid fabricating evidence. A complainant should never manufacture evidence to strengthen a complaint.
- Allow the Police to investigate. The complainant should not attempt to assume the investigative role of the Police.
- Avoid using the complaint as a weapon. A criminal complaint should not become a means of intimidating an opponent in a civil or commercial dispute.
- Avoid directing the Police as to whom they must arrest. The decision whether to arrest should ordinarily be based on the Police’s investigation and statutory powers.
Conclusion
Nigerian law recognises that citizens have a right, and in appropriate circumstances a civic duty, to report suspected criminal conduct to the Police.
So, reporting a crime does not make you responsible for the suspect.
What may create responsibility is a dishonest or malicious report, or conduct that goes beyond reporting and actively procures or facilitates the unlawful treatment of the person reported.
That distinction is important both for people who report crimes and for people who are arrested following criminal complaints.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the law depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Anyone facing a specific legal issue should seek advice from a qualified legal practitioner.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.