Before I begin, let me state unequivocally that this commentary does not seek to defend theft or shield criminality from the reach of the law. Theft remains a criminal offence under Nigerian law, and every person who is reasonably suspected of committing that offence should be arrested in accordance with the law, investigated by the appropriate law enforcement authorities, prosecuted before a court of competent jurisdiction where sufficient evidence exists, and, if found guilty after due process, punished in accordance with the applicable law. The concern addressed in this commentary is not whether thieves should be punished, but whether private citizens have the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the role of investigators, prosecutors, judges, and executioners by humiliating, assaulting, and publicly degrading persons merely because they are suspected of committing theft. The answer under Nigerian law is an unequivocal no. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, the rule of law demands that every person and every authority, whether governmental or private, must act within the confines of the law, irrespective of the emotions or public sentiments surrounding a particular incident.
A disturbing social trend has emerged across different parts of Nigeria where individuals accused or merely suspected of theft are subjected to public humiliation under the guise of entertainment. These suspects are often compelled to dance, sing, confess, or perform other degrading acts while surrounded by hostile crowds who simultaneously beat, intimidate, ridicule, and record them for dissemination across various social media platforms. What is particularly alarming is that these incidents are now celebrated as comedy or “cruise,” with many viewers applauding the conduct without appreciating its grave legal implications. The popularity of these videos does not confer legality upon the actions depicted therein. Rather, they reflect an increasingly dangerous culture where constitutional safeguards are sacrificed on the altar of public amusement. Nigerian law does not recognize social media popularity as a substitute for judicial authority, nor does it authorize members of the public to invent forms of punishment unknown to law simply because an individual has been branded a thief.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides a comprehensive framework for protecting the rights of every individual, irrespective of the allegations levelled against such a person. Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees that every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person and shall not be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. This constitutional guarantee admits of no exception merely because an individual is accused of theft. Likewise, Section 35 protects the right to personal liberty, while Section 36(5) expressly provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, in Uzoukwu v. Ezeonu II (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 708, explained that the constitutional right to dignity protects every individual against treatment that humiliates, degrades, or strips a person of his humanity. Consequently, compelling an alleged suspect to dance, sing, kneel, or entertain a crowd while being assaulted or threatened constitutes conduct that falls squarely within the category of degrading treatment prohibited by the Constitution.
It is equally important to appreciate that the constitutional presumption of innocence is not a mere technical rule of criminal procedure but one of the cornerstones of every democratic legal system. Section 36(5) of the Constitution does not state that an accused person is presumed innocent until social media declares otherwise or until members of a neighbourhood conclude that the person must have committed an offence. Rather, guilt can only be established through a judicial process conducted before a court vested with the constitutional authority to determine criminal liability. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of fair hearing and due process in Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550, where the Court emphasized that no person should be condemned without being afforded the opportunity to defend himself before a competent tribunal. Although that decision arose outside the criminal context, its enduring principle remains applicable, namely that no individual should suffer punishment or condemnation without due process of law.
Those who organize or participate in these public spectacles often justify their actions by asserting that the suspect was caught with stolen property or confessed to the offence. Such justifications are legally insufficient. Possession of allegedly stolen property may constitute evidence requiring investigation, but it is not synonymous with a judicial finding of guilt. Equally, a confession extracted through threats, violence, intimidation, or coercion is incapable of justifying unlawful treatment and may itself become inadmissible during criminal proceedings. Beyond the Constitution, the Anti Torture Act, 2017 criminalizes acts of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment inflicted upon any person. Consequently, individuals who beat, torture, or publicly humiliate suspects under the guise of extracting confessions or entertaining spectators may themselves incur criminal liability under the law, irrespective of whether the suspect is eventually convicted of theft.
Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of this emerging trend is the gradual normalization of jungle justice within the Nigerian society. Every video depicting an alleged thief dancing before an excited crowd sends a subtle but powerful message that constitutional safeguards are expendable whenever public emotions are sufficiently inflamed. History has repeatedly demonstrated that mob justice frequently produces tragic outcomes, including the assault and killing of innocent persons who were falsely identified, maliciously accused, or mistakenly believed to have committed offences they never committed. Once an innocent life is lost through mob action, no apology, viral correction, or subsequent acquittal can restore what has been destroyed. The Supreme Court’s insistence in Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 that the rule of law must prevail over self help remains profoundly relevant in addressing this growing menace.
The proper legal response to suspected theft has never been uncertain under Nigerian law. Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed theft, such a person may, where lawful, be apprehended and immediately handed over to the Nigeria Police Force or any other competent law enforcement agency for investigation in accordance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 or the applicable Administration of Criminal Justice Law of the relevant State. Thereafter, the investigative authorities bear the responsibility of gathering evidence, while the prosecuting authorities determine whether sufficient evidence exists to institute criminal proceedings. Ultimately, only a court of competent jurisdiction possesses the constitutional authority to pronounce an individual guilty and impose punishment authorized by law. Any private attempt to impose punishment before judicial determination amounts to an unlawful usurpation of judicial powers and an assault upon the constitutional order established by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The increasing commercialization of these humiliating spectacles through social media engagement further compounds the problem. What should ordinarily provoke public outrage is now rewarded with laughter, applause, likes, shares, and financial monetization. Individuals record, edit, and circulate these videos without reflecting upon the legal consequences of participating in or encouraging unlawful conduct. A society that transforms the humiliation of suspects into entertainment gradually erodes its commitment to justice, human dignity, and constitutional governance. Today the victim may indeed be guilty of theft, tomorrow the victim may be entirely innocent, but the constitutional principles violated remain exactly the same. The enduring strength of every legal system lies not in how it treats the popular or the innocent, but in how faithfully it protects the rights of those whom society is most tempted to condemn. Nigeria cannot claim fidelity to the rule of law while simultaneously celebrating acts that undermine the Constitution, disregard judicial authority, and reduce fundamental rights to mere inconveniences whenever an allegation of theft is made. The true test of a civilized society is not the severity of its anger against crime, but its unwavering commitment to ensuring that justice is administered only through lawful institutions established by the Constitution.
© 2026 LAWYERSVIEW. All Rights Reserved.
