Who Must Prove Reasonable Suspicion for Arrest in Nigeria? — Insight from SCC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Joseph

The right to personal liberty is one of the most important fundamental rights guaranteed under Nigerian law. However, there are limited circumstances where this right may be restricted, particularly when a person is arrested or detained based on reasonable suspicion of committing a crime.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria clarified an important legal principle on this issue in SCC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Joseph, specifically addressing who bears the burden of proving reasonable suspicion for arrest and detention.

Constitutional Background: Right to Personal Liberty

The right to personal liberty is guaranteed under Section 35(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

This section provides that every person shall be entitled to their personal liberty, and no person shall be deprived of that liberty except in specific situations permitted by law.

One such exception appears in Section 35(1)(c), which allows a person to be arrested or detained upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence.

However, because this provision limits a fundamental right, the courts treat it with strict scrutiny.

The Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court

In SCC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Joseph, the key question was:

Who bears the burden of proving that there was reasonable suspicion justifying the arrest and detention of a person?

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Nigeria held that:

The burden of proving the existence of reasonable suspicion justifying the arrest and detention of a person lies on the person who asserts it.

In simple terms, the person or authority that carried out the arrest must prove that there was reasonable suspicion.

This is because Section 35(1)(c) of the Constitution is a proviso that derogates from the fundamental right to personal liberty.

Since it limits a constitutional right, the party relying on that limitation must justify it.

The Test for “Reasonable Suspicion”

The Supreme Court also clarified that the test for reasonable suspicion is an objective one.

This means the court will not simply rely on the personal belief of the person making the arrest.

Instead, the suspicion must have:

• A factual basis
• An empirical foundation
• Circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime was committed

In other words, mere assumptions, speculation, or personal feelings are not enough to justify arrest or detention.

Earlier Case Referred To

In reaching its decision, the court referred to SCC (Nig.) Ltd. v. George, which also discussed the standard required to establish reasonable suspicion in matters involving personal liberty.

Key Legal Principle Established

The decision in SCC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Joseph establishes the following rule:

The burden of proving reasonable suspicion for the arrest and detention of a person lies on the party who asserts that such suspicion existed.

Therefore:

• Anyone who arrests or detains another person must be able to justify the action with objective facts.
• Failure to prove reasonable suspicion may result in a finding of unlawful arrest or detention.

Why This Case Is Important

This judgment strengthens the constitutional protection of personal liberty in Nigeria.

For citizens, it means:

• Your liberty cannot be taken away based on mere suspicion without factual basis.
• Authorities must be able to justify any arrest with objective evidence.

For lawyers and law enforcement authorities, the case emphasizes the need to ensure that any restriction on personal liberty complies strictly with constitutional standards.

Case Citation

SCC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Joseph
Court: Supreme Court of Nigeria
Judgment Date: Friday, 23 May 2025
Relevant Page: P. 272, paras. B–F