Kaduna Group Responds to El-Rufai’s Arrest Claims: A Call for Due Process and Institutional Accountability

Introduction: Navigating Security, Rights, and Political Discourse in Kaduna

In the dynamic and often contentious landscape of Nigerian politics and security, a recent public statement has reignited a critical national conversation. The Kaduna-based advocacy organization, Kaduna-Scribe, issued a formal response to allegations made by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, regarding “arbitrary arrests” by the current administration’s security apparatus. This development transcends a simple political spat; it touches on the foundational pillars of democratic governance: the rule of law, due process, civil liberties, and the responsible conduct of public discourse. Kaduna-Scribe’s statement, while acknowledging the gravity of El-Rufai’s concerns, pivots to a broader plea for all security operations to adhere strictly to constitutional procedures and established legal frameworks. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of this incident, exploring its background, dissecting its implications for Nigeria’s democratic health, and offering practical insights for citizens and stakeholders. We will examine why this debate is pivotal for the future of security sector reform in Nigeria and the preservation of fundamental human rights amidst complex security challenges.

Key Points: Deconstructing Kaduna-Scribe’s Statement

Before delving into the broader context, it is essential to distill the core tenets of Kaduna-Scribe’s response. The organization’s statement is not a blanket endorsement or dismissal of El-Rufai’s claims but a principled stance on process and institutional integrity. The key points are:

• Acknowledgment of Public Dialogue: The group recognizes that El-Rufai’s remarks have sparked necessary public discussion on governance, civil liberties, and institutional accountability in Kaduna State.
• Universal Principle of Due Process: The central thesis is that all security concerns must be addressed through due process and within constitutional limits, irrespective of the individual or political context.
• Rule of Law as Non-Negotiable: Investigations by security agencies must proceed without political interference or premature conclusions, upholding legal standards and respecting basic rights.
• Constructive Discourse: Public conversations about governance and security should aim to strengthen democratic institutions and public trust, not deepen societal or political divisions.
• Context of Broader National Challenges: The statement implicitly situates the Kaduna debate within Nigeria’s wider struggle to balance internal security operations with constitutional freedoms.

Background: The Actors, The Allegations, and The Kaduna Context

Who is Nasir El-Rufai and Why Do His Comments Matter?

Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai is a towering figure in contemporary Nigerian politics. He served as the Governor of Kaduna State from 2015 to 2023, a period marked by significant, albeit controversial, reforms and intense security pressures. His tenure was characterized by aggressive urban development projects in Kaduna city, a sometimes-brutal approach to dissent, and a hawkish stance on security. Post-governorship, he remains an influential voice within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and a kingmaker in Northern Nigerian politics. Consequently, any public allegation from him regarding the actions of his successor’s administration carries significant weight and is instantly politicized. His claims of “arbitrary arrests” directly challenge the integrity of the state’s security command under Governor Uba Sani’s administration.

Kaduna State: A Microcosm of Nigeria’s Security Dilemmas

To understand the gravity of this exchange, one must understand Kaduna’s unique position. It is not merely a northern state; it is a critical geopolitical and economic nerve center. It hosts Nigeria’s capital territory, Abuja, and is a major corridor for commerce and movement. Historically, it has been a flashpoint for ethno-religious tensions, farmer-herder conflicts, and, more recently, the spillover of terrorist activities from the Northwest. The state government, alongside federal security agencies, has continuously asserted that robust security measures are essential to prevent the state from descending into chaos. This context is often used to justify expansive security operations, which critics argue can sometimes lead to human rights abuses and extra-judicial detentions. The debate is, therefore, a classic and painful tension: state security versus individual liberty.

The Genesis of the “Arbitrary Arrests” Claim

While the original article does not specify a single incident, El-Rufai’s comments are believed to be in response to a pattern of arrests targeting his political allies, supporters, or critics of the current state government in Kaduna. Allegations typically include arrests made without warrants, prolonged detention without charge in violation of Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), and the use of security agencies to settle political scores. Such claims are not new in Nigerian politics; they echo similar accusations made across various states and administrations. What makes this instance notable is the stature of the accuser and the formal, principled response from a civil society group like Kaduna-Scribe, which seeks to reframe the debate from a partisan squabble to a constitutional issue.

Analysis: The Core Tensions – Security, Law, and Political Competition

Kaduna-Scribe’s statement is a masterclass in navigating a politically charged environment by elevating the discourse to the plane of constitutional principle. The analysis reveals several interconnected layers.

The Imperative of Due Process and the Rule of Law

At its heart, the statement is a reaffirmation of a bedrock democratic principle: that the state’s immense power to deprive citizens of liberty must be exercised fairly, predictably, and according to law. Due process is not a technicality for criminals to exploit; it is the mechanism that prevents tyranny. In the Nigerian context, this means adherence to the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the ACJA, and the Police Act. These laws require, among other things, that an arrested person be informed of the offense in a language they understand, be taken to court within a reasonable time (usually 24-48 hours), and have access to a lawyer. When allegations of “arbitrary arrests” arise, they suggest a breakdown of these procedures. Kaduna-Scribe’s call for “due procedure” is, therefore, a call for institutional discipline and respect for the legal frameworks meant to govern security agencies’ actions.

Security Imperatives vs. Civil Liberties: A False Dichotomy?

Governments, especially in conflict-prone regions like Kaduna, often argue that exceptional security threats require exceptional measures. They may imply that insisting on strict due process hampers effective intelligence gathering and neutralization of threats. However, Kaduna-Scribe’s position aligns with a growing body of legal and security expertise that argues this is a false dichotomy. Respect for the rule of law is itself a force multiplier for security. When communities trust that security agencies will act lawfully, they are more likely to cooperate, provide intelligence, and see the police as protectors rather than an occupying force. Arbitrary arrests breed resentment, alienate communities, and can even fuel radicalization. A sustainable security strategy in Kaduna must therefore integrate, not sideline, human rights compliance.

The Politics of “Reform” and Institutional Memory

The statement’s reference to “past reforms and policy decisions” is a subtle but potent political observation. El-Rufai’s administration was known for its own controversial security approaches, including the disbandment of traditional emirates and restructuring of local government areas—moves that were framed as reforms but also seen as politically motivated. Kaduna-Scribe notes that such reforms “generate numerous public reactions.” This highlights a critical point: institutional practices are often inherited. The current security command’s culture, whether permissive of overreach or not, was shaped over years, including under El-Rufai. The call for due process, therefore, is also a call for a break from any perceived culture of impunity, regardless of its origin. It asks the current administration to establish its own legacy based on constitutional fidelity.

The Critical Role of Responsible Public Discourse

Perhaps the most timely aspect of Kaduna-Scribe’s intervention is its plea for “responsible discourse.” Nigeria is in an election cycle, and political rhetoric often becomes inflammatory. Accusations of state-sponsored repression are potent tools for mobilization. While public figures must be able to criticize government actions, Kaduna-Scribe warns that such discussions should “strengthen institutions and public confidence rather than deepen divisions.” This is a direct appeal to move beyond partisan narratives and engage in fact-based, solution-oriented debate about improving security sector governance. It suggests that sensationalist claims, even if partially true, can damage the very institutions—the police, the courts—that are necessary for a functioning democracy and effective security.

Practical Advice: For Citizens, Civil Society, and the State

Moving from analysis to action, what can be done? The principles outlined by Kaduna-Scribe require concrete steps from all stakeholders.

For Citizens and Victims of Potential Abuse

• Know Your Rights: Every Nigerian must be familiar with basic rights upon arrest, as enshrined in the Constitution and ACJA. These include the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and the right to be brought before a court within 24-48 hours.
• Document Everything: If you witness or experience a potential rights violation, discreetly note details: officer names (if possible), badge numbers, time, location, and witnesses. This information is crucial for any future legal action or advocacy.
• Utilize Legal Aid: Organizations like the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, human rights NGOs, and pro-bono lawyers can provide assistance. Do not hesitate to seek legal counsel immediately.
• Report Through Official Channels: Complaints can be lodged with the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Ministry of Justice, and state-level human rights commissions. While not always effective, creating a formal paper trail is important.

For Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Media

• Move Beyond Partisanship: Frame violations as systemic and constitutional issues, not merely as attacks by one political faction on another. This builds broader coalitions.
• Systematic Documentation: Move beyond individual cases to compile data, reports, and pattern analysis on security sector conduct in Kaduna and beyond. Use tools like shadow reporting for international human rights bodies.
• Public Legal Education: Launch campaigns to educate citizens on their rights and legal remedies. An informed citizenry is the first line of defense against abuse.
• Strategic Litigation: Identify key cases with strong evidence of rights violations and support them through the courts to set precedents and hold agencies accountable.

For the Kaduna State Government and Security Agencies

• Mandatory Training: Implement and enforce regular, mandatory training for all security personnel on the ACJA, constitutional rights, and community policing principles. Certification should be required for operational duty.
• Internal Accountability Mechanisms: Strengthen internal affairs units within the police and other agencies to swiftly and transparently investigate credible allegations of misconduct. Publicize the outcomes of such investigations to build trust.
• Establish Independent Oversight: Create or empower a state-level security oversight body with civilian representation and a mandate to review arrest procedures, detention conditions, and complaint resolutions.
• Public Communication: The state government and security command should proactively communicate their operational protocols and commitment to the rule of law, especially when conducting large-scale operations. Transparency reduces suspicion.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions on Arrests, Rights, and Accountability

What exactly constitutes an “arbitrary arrest” under Nigerian law?

An arbitrary arrest is one made without legal justification or due process. It violates Section 35 of the Nigerian Constitution (Right to Personal Liberty) and the ACJA. Key hallmarks include: arrest without a warrant (except in specific, exigent circumstances defined by law); failure to inform the Arrestee of the reason for arrest; detention beyond the constitutionally mandated 24-48 hours without arraignment; and arrest based on suspicion alone without any reasonable grounds or evidence. An arrest made for purely political reasons, to intimidate, or as a form of punishment without trial is the epitome of arbitrariness.

If someone is arrested, what is the very first thing they should do?

The first and most critical step is to calmly and clearly state the desire to contact a lawyer. This invokes the right to legal representation. Do not resist arrest physically, as this can lead to additional charges. Politely ask for the reason for arrest and the name/rank of the arresting officer. Do not volunteer information or sign any documents without your lawyer present. If you cannot afford a lawyer, insist that the police notify the Legal Aid Council or a relative who can seek help on your behalf.

Can a security agency legally detain someone beyond 48 hours without court approval?

Generally, no. The Constitution and ACJA are explicit: a person arrested must be arraigned in court within a reasonable time, interpreted as 24-48 hours. Exceptions are extremely limited and must be ordered by a court (e.g., a remand order following a formal application by the prosecution). Any detention beyond 48 hours without a court order is illegal and constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. The onus is on the security agency to justify any delay to a judge.

What legal recourse does a victim of an unlawful arrest have?

Victims have several avenues:

1. File a Complaint: With the officer’s superior, the Police Service Commission (PSC), or the state’s Commissioner of Police.
2. Apply for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: File a motion in the High Court seeking the enforcement of your rights under Section 35 of the Constitution. The court can order your release and award damages.
3. File a Civil Suit for Damages: Sue the offending