PRESS STATEMENT
9 September 2026
POLICE POWER MUST SERVE THE LAW, NOT OVERRIDE IT: CEHRAWS QUESTIONS ARREST, DETENTION AND REPORTED REARREST OF NWOSU CHIKAMSO JENNIFER
The Centre for Human Rights Advocacy and Wholesome Society (CEHRAWS) has carefully considered the complaint by the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) concerning the arrest and detention of Ms. Nwosu Chikamso Jennifer, the subsequent response of the Anambra State Police Command, and the disturbing developments reportedly arising after Ms. Jennifer returned to the Rapid Response Squad (RRS), Awkuzu, on 7 September 2026.
CEHRAWS acknowledges the Police Command’s position that Ms. Jennifer was arrested because she allegedly assisted her brother, Nwosu Kenechukwu, whom the Police describe as a person of interest in investigations into cult-related killings, to evade arrest.
If supported by credible and admissible evidence, the Police are entitled, and indeed duty-bound, to investigate any offence Ms. Jennifer may have committed. However, investigation is not conviction, and suspicion is not guilt.
The central question is therefore straightforward: What specific offence was Ms. Jennifer arrested for, and what evidence existed at the time of her arrest to establish reasonable suspicion that she had committed that offence?
Section 38 of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020 permits a police officer to arrest without warrant in specified circumstances, including where the officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence. However, Section 36 expressly provides that a person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect.
Accordingly, the Police cannot lawfully justify Ms. Jennifer’s arrest merely on the basis of her relationship with her brother or as a means of compelling him to surrender. If the Police contend that she committed an offence by assisting him to evade arrest, the Command should identify the specific offence, the applicable statutory provision and the facts giving rise to the alleged reasonable suspicion.
The distinction is fundamental: a person’s relationship with an alleged offender does not, by itself, make that person criminally liable.
CEHRAWS is equally concerned by the reported four-day detention of Ms. Jennifer from 31 August to 3 September 2026.
Section 35 of the Nigeria Police Act requires an arrested suspect to be informed of the reason for the arrest and of the right to remain silent, consult a legal practitioner and, where applicable, obtain free legal representation. The law also requires the authority having custody of the suspect to notify the suspect’s next of kin or relative of the arrest.
The Police Command should therefore clarify whether Ms. Jennifer was promptly informed of the allegation against her, whether she was informed of her statutory rights, whether she had access to legal counsel and what legal basis justified her continued detention during the period in question.
Section 62 of the Police Act further regulates the release on bail of suspects arrested without warrant for offences other than capital offences where it is not practicable to bring them before a court within 24 hours.
The circumstances of Ms. Jennifer’s detention therefore require a clear explanation, including whether she was taken before a competent court and, if not, the legal basis upon which she remained in Police custody.
CEHRAWS also notes the conflicting accounts concerning the alleged payment of ₦600,000 before Ms. Jennifer’s release.
We welcome the Police Command’s categorical denial that any such payment was demanded or received. However, an allegation of this nature should not be resolved merely through competing public statements. It should be independently and transparently investigated.
If no money was demanded or received, the relevant arrest, custody, bail and release records should assist the appropriate oversight authorities in establishing the circumstances of her release. RULAAC has reportedly stated that Ms. Jennifer previously communicated in writing that the ₦600,000 was allegedly paid as “administrative bail” and that no receipt or acknowledgment was issued.
CEHRAWS does not, at this stage, pronounce on which account is factually correct. We call instead for an independent investigation capable of establishing the truth from documentary and other credible evidence.
We are also concerned about the reported seizure and continued retention of Ms. Jennifer’s mobile telephone.
Section 46 of the Police Act requires a police officer making an arrest, or to whom a private person hands over a suspect, to record information about the arrested suspect and prepare an inventory of items or property recovered from the suspect. The inventory is to be signed and a copy made available to the suspect, the suspect’s legal practitioner or another person designated by the suspect.
The Police should therefore account for the telephone, including when and why it was seized, whether it was entered in the required inventory, whether a copy of the inventory was provided to Ms. Jennifer or her lawyer, and the legal basis for its continued retention.
Of even greater concern are the developments reportedly arising after Ms. Jennifer returned to the RRS, Awkuzu, on 7 September 2026.
According to RULAAC, attempts to reach Ms. Jennifer after her return to the station have been unsuccessful, while her telephone has reportedly remained unreachable.
RULAAC has further reported that, during telephone communications with senior officers of the Anambra State Police Command on the evening of 7 September, the Commissioner of Police allegedly expressed displeasure that Ms. Jennifer had reported her ordeal to RULAAC and reportedly described her action as having “betrayed” the Police.
RULAAC also reported that the Police Public Relations Officer informed it that the Commissioner had ordered Ms. Jennifer’s rearrest.
CEHRAWS considers these allegations deeply troubling, not because the Police lack the power to arrest a person where a lawful and independent basis exists, but because police powers must never be used to punish or intimidate a citizen for seeking legal assistance, reporting an alleged violation or approaching a human-rights organisation.
If Ms. Jennifer has indeed been rearrested, the Police Command should immediately clarify the specific offence forming the basis of the rearrest, the evidence supporting reasonable suspicion, her present location and legal status, whether she has been taken before a competent court and whether she has unrestricted access to her lawyer and family.
If the Police maintain that the rearrest was based on an independent criminal offence, the Command should identify that offence and disclose the lawful basis for the arrest and any continued detention.
A citizen who believes that her rights have been violated is entitled to seek legal advice, petition public authorities and approach a human-rights organisation. That is not betrayal; it is accountability.
A democratic policing institution should welcome lawful complaints because they provide an opportunity to identify misconduct, correct institutional weaknesses and strengthen public confidence.
CEHRAWS is particularly concerned by the reported characterisation of Ms. Jennifer’s decision to approach RULAAC as a “betrayal” of the Police. Any suggestion that a citizen may face punitive consequences for seeking assistance from a lawyer, civil-society organisation or human-rights institution would be fundamentally inconsistent with rights-based policing.
The Police Act places the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms among the functions of the Nigeria Police Force and requires respect for fundamental rights and applicable human-rights instruments.
RULAAC has also reported that the Commissioner subsequently informed the organisation that Ms. Jennifer, in the presence of her lawyer, denied telling RULAAC that ₦600,000 had been demanded or obtained before her release.
CEHRAWS does not allege that this subsequent account was obtained through coercion, as there is presently insufficient independent evidence to reach such a conclusion. However, the reported change in account warrants independent verification, particularly because it allegedly occurred after Ms. Jennifer returned to the custody or direct control of the same Police formation against which the original complaint had been made.
The appropriate response is therefore not speculation but an independent process through which Ms. Jennifer can communicate freely and confidentially with her lawyer and provide any account she wishes to give without intimidation or pressure.
CEHRAWS reiterates that criminal responsibility is personal. If there is credible evidence that Ms. Jennifer committed an offence by assisting her brother to evade arrest, that allegation should be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted before a competent court.
But the Police must distinguish clearly between allegation, reasonable suspicion, investigation, prosecution and conviction.
Ms. Jennifer has not been convicted of any offence by a court. She is therefore entitled to the presumption of innocence and all applicable constitutional and statutory safeguards.
Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly the protections against arbitrary arrest and detention and the guarantees of fair hearing, reinforce these principles.
CEHRAWS therefore calls on the Anambra State Police Command to:
1. Clearly state the specific offence for which Ms. Jennifer was arrested and, if she has been rearrested, the specific offence forming the basis of the subsequent arrest;
2. Identify the evidence establishing reasonable suspicion against Ms. Jennifer independently of her relationship with her brother;
3. Explain the legal basis for her detention from 31 August to 3 September 2026 and state whether she was brought before a competent court;
4. Produce the relevant arrest, detention, bail and release records;
5. Ensure an independent investigation into the allegation of the ₦600,000 payment and establish whether any officer or other person demanded or received the money;
6. Account fully for Ms. Jennifer’s mobile telephone and demonstrate compliance with Section 46 of the Police Act concerning its seizure, inventory and continued retention;
7. Immediately clarify Ms. Jennifer’s present whereabouts and legal status if she was rearrested following her return to RRS Awkuzu;
8. Guarantee her unrestricted access to her lawyer and family if she remains in Police custody;
9. Explain the reported characterisation of her decision to approach RULAAC as a “betrayal” and assure the public that no citizen will face reprisal for seeking lawful assistance;
10. Ensure that Ms. Jennifer is not subjected to arbitrary detention, intimidation, coercion or unlawful financial demands merely because she is related to a person wanted by the Police; and
11. Where any officer is found to have acted outside the law, ensure appropriate investigation, accountability and disciplinary action.
CEHRAWS does not seek to obstruct the investigation of the alleged cult-related killings. On the contrary, we support every lawful effort to identify, investigate and prosecute those responsible and, where guilt is established by a competent court, ensure that they face the consequences provided by law.
But fighting crime cannot mean abandoning the law.
The Police are not above the Constitution. A suspect’s relative is not automatically a suspect. A police allegation is not a conviction. Administrative convenience is not a substitute for due process, and the urgency of a criminal investigation cannot become a licence for arbitrary detention or intimidation.
If Ms. Jennifer committed an offence, let the Police establish it through credible evidence and due process. If she did not, she must not be treated as a substitute for her brother. And if she sought assistance because she genuinely believed that her rights had been violated, seeking protection must never become a basis for retaliation.
The Anambra State Police Command has an opportunity to demonstrate that effective policing and respect for human rights are not competing objectives. Rights-based policing is not weakness; it is the foundation of legitimate and democratic policing.
CEHRAWS therefore expects answers, not excuses; evidence, not assertions; accountability, not intimidation; and lawful policing, not arbitrary power.
No citizen should have to choose between reporting a rights violation and remaining safe from reprisal. The Police must investigate crime, but they must do so within the law.
Signed
Okoye, Chuka Peter
cehraws@gmail.com | +234(0)808-035-1242(WhatsApp only)
Facebook: @cehraws
