Reported By Mary Udezue | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
The Nigeria Police Force has strongly rejected claims by the International Press Institute that it is hostile to press freedom, describing the organisation’s decision to suspend engagement with the Force as disproportionate, misleading, and unsupported by facts. The rebuttal follows public outrage over the alleged wrongful arrest of a journalist, an incident that has reignited long-running tensions between law enforcement authorities and media rights advocates in Nigeria.
In a detailed statement issued from Force Headquarters in Abuja, the Police said attempts to link the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Adeolu Egbetokun, to the alleged arrest were “unfounded” and “disingenuous,” insisting that the IGP neither authorised nor condoned the detention, harassment, or intimidation of any journalist. According to the Police, the narrative suggesting institutional hostility to the media misrepresents both the facts of the case and the leadership’s response.
The controversy stems from a recent announcement by the International Press Institute, a global media freedom organisation, that it was suspending formal engagement with the Nigeria Police Force. The IPI cited what it described as a pattern of intimidation of journalists, using the arrest of one reporter as a tipping point. While the organisation did not allege direct involvement by the IGP, its statement was widely interpreted as an indictment of police leadership and institutional culture.
Responding to these claims, the Police emphasised that once the issue was formally brought to the attention of the Inspector-General by the President of the IPI, Musikilu Mojeed, immediate action was taken. The Force said the journalist in question was promptly released, and the Force Monitoring Unit was directed to begin a full investigation into the conduct of the officers involved. Clear instructions, it added, were issued that any personnel found culpable would face disciplinary measures in line with existing laws and internal regulations.
Police authorities stressed that these steps were not taken quietly or defensively but were communicated transparently to the IPI, countering claims of inaction or indifference. The Force argued that it was therefore inaccurate to suggest that leadership ignored the incident or sought to shield those responsible.
At the heart of the Police response is a broader institutional argument: that misconduct by individual officers should not be automatically attributed to the leadership or treated as official policy. With a workforce exceeding 300,000 personnel deployed across Nigeria’s diverse and often volatile security landscape, the Police contend that isolated cases of abuse, while regrettable, are neither representative nor tolerated.
The statement underscored that disciplinary processes exist precisely to address such misconduct, warning against what it described as a tendency to “weaponize” individual incidents in order to discredit the entire institution. According to the Police, the vast majority of officers continue to perform their duties professionally and lawfully, often under challenging and high-risk conditions.
A key point of contention raised by the Force concerns the investigative process itself. Police records, according to the statement, indicate that the IPI submitted a formal petition regarding the incident, which was referred to the Force Monitoring Unit. However, the Police allege that the IPI declined repeated invitations to appear before the Unit to formally adopt and harmonise its statements, a step described as essential for concluding investigations and enforcing disciplinary measures.
The Police argue that this refusal undermines claims that the Force failed to act, describing it as contradictory to obstruct investigative procedures while simultaneously alleging inaction. This aspect of the dispute has added a procedural dimension to what was initially framed as a human rights and press freedom issue, raising questions about cooperation, due process, and institutional trust.
Against this backdrop, the Police questioned the objectivity and proportionality of the IPI’s decision to suspend engagement, particularly in light of what they describe as immediate corrective measures and an ongoing investigation. The Force characterised the move as premature and potentially damaging, warning that disengagement could hinder constructive dialogue and reform rather than advance it.
The response also reflects a deeper sensitivity within the Nigeria Police Force to public perception and institutional credibility. In recent years, the Police have faced sustained criticism over allegations of brutality, unlawful arrests, and abuse of power, most notably during and after the EndSARS protests. Since assuming office, IGP Egbetokun has repeatedly pledged to prioritise professionalism, accountability, and respect for human rights, including freedom of expression and media independence.
By framing the current dispute as an issue of due process rather than suppression of dissent, the Police appear keen to draw a line between acknowledged imperfections and what they view as unfair generalisations. The Force insisted it would not accept narratives that seek to undermine its leadership through allegations that have not been substantiated by completed investigations.
At the same time, the statement reaffirmed the Police’s commitment to constitutional policing and media freedom, signalling that engagement with civil society and professional bodies remains desirable. However, it warned that no organisation has the authority to pronounce guilt or mobilise public sentiment in place of established investigative and disciplinary mechanisms.
The standoff with the IPI has sparked mixed reactions among journalists, rights groups, and legal analysts. Some media advocates argue that the Police response, while detailed, does not fully address the climate of fear journalists often report when dealing with security agencies. Others contend that disengagement by advocacy groups risks entrenching mistrust and reducing opportunities for reform through dialogue.
For now, the investigation into the officers involved in the arrest remains ongoing, with the Police maintaining that accountability will follow due process rather than public pressure. Whether the IPI will reconsider its suspension of engagement may depend on the outcome of that investigation and the extent to which both sides can rebuild confidence.
As Nigeria continues to navigate the delicate balance between security enforcement and civil liberties, the episode highlights enduring tensions between the press and law enforcement. It also underscores the importance of transparent processes, mutual accountability, and sustained engagement in addressing misconduct without eroding institutional legitimacy or fundamental freedoms.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments