A Psychologist Responds: Commissioner Jimoh’s Call To Revive Suspect Parades Undermines Legal And Ethical Progress In Nigeria

In a country where confidence in policing and judicial processes remains fragile, public statements from senior law enforcement officials should reflect clarity, legality, and leadership. But what happens when a public officer, knowingly or unknowingly, contradicts established constitutional orders, defies federal directives, and appears to romanticize a discredited era of policing?

That is exactly the situation Nigeria faces following recent comments made by Commissioner of Police, Lagos State Command, Mr. Moshood Jimoh, who openly called for a reversal of the national ban on the public parade of criminal suspects—a practice the Federal Government, courts, and human rights community have collectively denounced as illegal and dehumanizing.

A Return to the Past: What Did Commissioner Jimoh Say?

While addressing the media, Mr. Jimoh stated:

“We have brought in several suspects, but we cannot parade them because of the perceived public trial. This slows down their prosecution and delays justice for the victims.”

He added:
“When we parade suspects, victims of the crimes, people they have injured or hurt, can identify them. It often encourages them to come forward and pursue justice in court.”

At face value, one might view these remarks as a pragmatic concern from a police administrator seeking efficient outcomes. But beneath the surface lies a troubling assertion—that the Constitution, judicial rulings, and human rights protections should take a back seat to institutional convenience and visual proof of police activity.

This is not just a legal error. It is a psychological and democratic misstep that deserves serious attention.

The Law Is Clear: Public Suspect Parades Are Illegal

Let us start from first principles: the parade of suspects before trial is illegal under Nigerian law. In 2024, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, acting on behalf of the Federal Government, issued a formal directive prohibiting this practice. The directive, quickly enforced by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), represents a long-overdue commitment to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Why did this change occur?
Because the 1999 Constitution, under:
Section 36(5) guarantees that every person is “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

Section 34(1)(a) guarantees the right to dignity and freedom from degrading treatment.

And Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified and binding in Nigeria, reaffirms these protections.

Moreover, the Federal High Court and the ECOWAS Court of Justice have issued multiple rulings, all declaring public suspect parades to be “unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.” Yet, Mr. Jimoh—who swore to uphold these very legal frameworks—has taken a public stance in direct opposition to them.

Justice Is Not Delayed by Parades Being Banned—It Is Delayed by Weak Institutions

When Mr. Jimoh claims that the absence of parades is “slowing down prosecution,” the underlying assumption is that media exposure accelerates justice. But this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how justice systems work.

In reality, no modern, rights-respecting country relies on public humiliation to secure convictions.

Cases are not resolved because a suspect’s face was shown on national TV. They are resolved through:

Thorough investigations
Admissible evidence
Properly obtained witness testimony
Coordination between police, prosecutors, and the courts

Justice is delayed not because suspects aren’t paraded—it is delayed because Nigeria’s policing institutions still struggle with forensic readiness, case management systems, digital case tracking, and investigative documentation.

If a Commissioner of Police believes that parading suspects is a key ingredient in case success, then we are no longer discussing law enforcement—we are discussing performance art.

Parading Suspects for Victim Identification Is Not Only Risky—It Is Harmful

Let us also consider Commissioner Jimoh’s argument that:

“Parading suspects helps victims identify them and encourages them to testify.”

This claim may seem practical, but it is ethically troubling and legally unsound. In fact, this practice may jeopardize prosecutions rather than help them.

Practical, Lawful Methods for Victim Identification in Modern Policing

For officers and legal actors in Nigeria seeking credible alternatives to public parading, it is essential to understand the globally accepted, court-compliant techniques used for suspect identification. These methods prioritize evidence integrity, victim protection, and the rights of the accused, while ensuring the process is legally defensible in court.

Here are four key methods:
1. Photo Arrays (Photographic Lineups)
Officers show the victim a series of photographs—one of which may contain the suspect—under controlled, unbiased conditions.

The administrator should not know which photo is the suspect (“double-blind” process).

Photos must be similar in appearance (age, race, clothing) to avoid leading the victim.

Instructions should clarify that the suspect may or may not be present.

Why it works: It minimizes suggestion and ensures the identification is based on memory, not influence

2. One-Way Mirror Viewings
This allows a witness or victim to observe a live lineup of suspects from behind a one-way mirror without being seen.

The lineup should include multiple “fillers” who match the suspect’s description.

The witness should make the identification without coaching or prompting.

Why it works: It protects the identity of the witness and preserves psychological neutrality.

3. Supervised Live Lineups (Physical Lineups)

This traditional method requires suspects and non-suspects (fillers) to appear together in person for identification.

Conducted in a neutral location under legal supervision.

Statements and selections are documented on the spot.

Why it works: It offers transparency and is admissible in court when done without bias.

4. Digital Facial Recognition (With Legal Oversight)

Used primarily in cybercrime or surveillance-related cases, this technology compares suspect images with known databases.

Must be handled by trained officers with respect to data privacy laws.

Requires court or administrative oversight to ensure admissibility.

Why it works: It can assist in narrowing down suspects without public exposure or humiliation.

Why Public Parades Fail the Legal and Psychological Test

When police parade suspects on national television or in front of news cameras—and a victim later “identifies” the person they saw—that identification is often considered legally compromised.

A defense attorney can easily argue that:
The victim was influenced by the media exposure.

The identification was not based on direct memory, but suggestion.

The accused was prejudged, violating their right to presumption of innocence.

In such cases, courts—especially in countries bound by constitutional and international rights law, like Nigeria—may dismiss the identification as unreliable or inadmissible.

A Call for Training and Modernization
If the goal of law enforcement is conviction through justice—not spectacle—then the Nigeria Police Force must invest in:

Training officers in ethical identification protocols

Equipping stations with lineup facilities
Educating personnel on how evidence can be contaminated by media exposure

Collaborating with the judiciary to standardize lawful identification procedures

Dignified Justice Begins with Lawful Identification, Not Public Parades

The Parade Era Must Give Way to Professional Identification Protocols That Respect Both the Victim and the Suspect—and Ensure the Strength of the Case in Court

What Nigeria needs is not spectacle, but structure—professional, lawful, and psychologically sound methods that protect the dignity of all parties involved while strengthening the legal validity of every criminal case.

Parading suspects does not support justice; it undermines it. While often framed as a method of aiding victim identification or boosting public confidence, the reality is more troubling. The process often ends up re-traumatizing victims, pulling them into a media-driven spectacle instead of providing them with a secure, confidential, and respectful space to participate in justice.

This Practice Is Not About Crime Control—It Is About Controlling the Narrative

Let us not deceive ourselves: the public parade of suspects has little to do with due process or the actual delivery of justice. More often, it serves as a tool of institutional theater, allowing police authorities to project the appearance of action in the face of rising public pressure.

Suspect parades offer:
Photo opportunities for press briefings
Soundbites for public consumption
Symbolic reassurance to citizens that “something is being done”

But all of this comes at a heavy cost: the dignity of accused persons, many of whom may eventually be found innocent, and the credibility of the justice system itself, which should be rooted in fairness, not fear.

Even more concerning is the fact that this practice is not rooted in Nigerian cultural or legal heritage. It is a colonial leftover—a relic of an oppressive era where public humiliation was used to intimidate and control. It was never designed for justice. It was designed for domination. To continue such practices in a democratic society is to betray our own evolution.

We Must Choose Between Spectacle and Substance

This debate is not about defending criminals. It is about defending due process, the essential foundation of any fair justice system.

Every time a suspect is paraded before trial:

We compromise the possibility of a fair hearing

We erode public confidence in legal neutrality

We replace structured legal reasoning with emotional performance

The result is a dangerous erosion of public trust in policing institutions. Citizens begin to see law enforcement not as constitutional protectors, but as performers staging justice, rather than executing it.

A Moment for Institutional Discipline and National Reflection

Commissioner Jimoh’s remarks—though perhaps made out ofroutine or operational concern—represent more than just a personal opinion. They publicly undermine the authority of the Attorney General, contradict the directive of the Inspector General of Police, and create confusion within the ranks of officers and in the minds of the Nigerian public.

In any well-ordered institutional structure, such a public contradiction of leadership and policy would trigger an internal review or a formal correction. To remain silent in the face of such defiance risks sending a destructive message—that some officers can selectively honor the Constitution, and that leadership can be questioned without consequence.

That is not how institutions are strengthened.

Final Word: Reform Must Be Protected from the Inside Out

The ban on public parading of suspects is not merely a policy decision. It is a watershed reform, one that symbolizes Nigeria’s commitment to human dignity, constitutional values, and modern justice. It brought the country into closer alignment with international norms and helped reframe policing as a service to people—not a performance for the public.

This progress must not be undone by nostalgia for outdated tactics or public displays.

The Attorney General and the IGP have spoken with legal and moral clarity. The courts have issued their judgments. The only question that remains is whether all leaders within the Nigerian Police Force—including Commissioner Jimoh—will align with the law or continue to signal regression.

Nigeria must not go back.
The parade era is over. Let us not revive it.