By Okechukwu Nwanguma
The recent judgment of the ECOWAS Court of Justice in the case of Ogeche Njaka v. Federal Republic of Nigeria is a significant reminder that the fight against crime must not come at the expense of fundamental human rights.
The Court’s finding that Nigeria violated the applicant’s rights to the presumption of innocence and human dignity through the publication of a police wanted notice should prompt urgent reflection and reform within Nigeria’s law enforcement institutions.
At the heart of the case was a simple but profound legal principle: every person accused of a crime remains innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law.
The ECOWAS Court found that the wording of the wanted notice issued against Ogeche Njaka did not merely identify her as a suspect under investigation. Rather, it stated that she had “committed” criminal offences. In doing so, the notice effectively pronounced her guilty before any trial had taken place and before any court had determined her culpability.
This distinction is not merely semantic. It goes to the core of the rule of law.
The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of democratic justice systems. It is guaranteed under Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When state institutions publicly portray suspects as criminals before conviction, they undermine this fundamental safeguard and prejudice the fairness of future judicial proceedings.
The Court also rightly recognised the human consequences of such conduct. Publicly branding a person as a criminal can expose them to humiliation, stigma, social ostracism, reputational damage, economic loss, and psychological distress. In the age of social media, such harm can be amplified and become virtually permanent, long after investigations have ended or charges have been dismissed.
This is not an isolated problem.
In Nigeria, law enforcement agencies routinely publish wanted notices accompanied by language that suggests guilt rather than suspicion. Press statements often describe suspects as having committed crimes even before investigations are concluded or prosecutions commenced. Such practices are particularly troubling because they occur in a context where criminal investigations are frequently influenced by political interests, personal vendettas, business disputes, and abuse of state power.
The danger is compounded by the reality that many individuals declared wanted may never be convicted. Some cases collapse due to insufficient evidence. Others are withdrawn. Some are dismissed outright by the courts. Yet the reputational damage inflicted by public declarations of guilt often remains irreversible.
The ECOWAS Court’s judgment therefore serves as an important corrective. It affirms that law enforcement agencies have a duty to pursue criminal suspects, but they must do so in ways that respect the rights and dignity of those suspects. Obtaining a warrant or declaring a person wanted does not confer authority to pronounce them guilty.
The judgment also raises broader questions about police communication practices in Nigeria. There is an urgent need for clear guidelines governing the issuance of wanted notices and public statements relating to criminal investigations. Such guidelines should require that language used by law enforcement agencies clearly indicate that allegations remain under investigation and that suspects retain the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court.
Beyond policy reforms, there must be accountability. Public officials who knowingly issue statements or publications that violate constitutional rights should face administrative sanctions. Human rights training should be institutionalised within law enforcement agencies to ensure that officers understand both their investigative powers and their obligations under domestic and international law.
The Court’s order directing Nigeria to remove the wanted notice, publish the judgment, and compensate the applicant may appear modest. Yet the significance of the decision extends far beyond the monetary award. It establishes an important precedent that reinforces the principle that state power must be exercised within the limits of law and respect for human dignity.
In a democracy governed by the rule of law, individuals are tried in courts, not convicted through press releases or wanted posters. The ECOWAS Court has reminded Nigeria of this fundamental truth.
The challenge now is whether Nigerian authorities will learn from this judgment and reform practices that too often sacrifice rights on the altar of expediency.
Justice demands nothing less.
