By

Chidi Ezenwafor MCArb, FIMC, CMS (Dist.)

A growing practice among some investigative agencies in Nigeria deserves serious constitutional scrutiny.

A citizen receives a letter from the Police, EFCC, ICPC, DSS, or another agency stating:

“You are invited in connection with an investigation…”

But the invitation contains no meaningful information.

No disclosure of the alleged offence.

No particulars of the complaint.

No indication of whether the recipient is a witness, suspect, or person of interest.

No facts upon which the invitation is based.

Sometimes, even when counsel requests clarification, none is provided.

The situation becomes more troubling when the citizen is directed to travel across the country at personal expense to answer an allegation he knows nothing about.

A resident of Owerri is asked to report in Abuja.

A resident of Enugu is directed to appear in Lagos.

A resident of Kano is summoned to another jurisdiction entirely.

All without knowing the nature of the complaint.

The issue is not whether investigative agencies possess powers to investigate. They do.

The Nigeria Police Force derives nationwide authority from Section 214 of the Constitution, while several federal agencies enjoy broad investigative powers under their enabling statutes.

The real question is this:

Can the coercive machinery of the State compel a citizen to travel across jurisdictions, under threat of arrest or detention, to answer an undisclosed allegation?

This question goes to the heart of constitutional democracy.

Section 36 of the Constitution guarantees the right to fair hearing.

Fair hearing is not limited to courtroom proceedings. It begins when state power is exercised against a citizen in a manner capable of affecting his liberty, reputation, or legal interests.

How does a person prepare a defence without knowing the allegation?

How does counsel properly advise?

How are relevant documents, witnesses, and evidence identified?

A hearing without particulars is not fairness. It is ambush.

-Section 35 guarantees personal liberty.

-Section 34 protects the dignity of the human person.

-Section 41 guarantees freedom of movement.

While these rights are not absolute, any restriction on them must be lawful, reasonable, proportionate, and justifiable.

The practical consequences are significant.

The invited person bears the cost of transportation, accommodation, lost income, disrupted business activities, and separation from family and support systems.

If detention occurs far from home, access to counsel, sureties, and immediate assistance may become considerably more difficult.

At that point, investigation begins to look less like fact-finding and more like pressure.

The courts have repeatedly warned against the abuse of investigative and criminal processes.

In McLaren v. Jennings (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 808) 470 and Ibiyeye v. Gold (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1301) 55, the courts emphasized that criminal processes must not be used as instruments of oppression or coercion.

Similarly, in Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606, the Supreme Court affirmed investigative powers while recognizing that such powers remain subject to constitutional limitations.

Investigative power must never become arbitrary power.

There is room for reform.

Investigative invitations should, at a minimum, disclose:

-The nature of the complaint;

-The alleged offence under investigation;

-Whether the recipient is a witness, suspect, or person of interest; and

-Sufficient particulars to enable meaningful preparation.

Where appropriate, local commands, inter-agency cooperation, remote interviews, and electronic document submissions should be utilized to reduce unnecessary hardship.

A constitutional democracy cannot normalize a system where citizens are compelled to defend unknown allegations, in distant jurisdictions, at personal expense, while facing the risk of detention far from their homes and support networks.

The powers of investigation exist to uncover the truth, not to create pressure.

A simple democratic principle must remain clear:

Investigation is not punishment.