Author Archives: Ayobami Olatunde

By: Ayodeji Adimula

Oftentimes, clients purchase goods, including properties without conducting due diligence before the conclusion of a transaction. Caveat emptor simply means buyer beware and generally, the rule does not place an obligation on the seller to reveal defects in the goods or property to be sold. This doctrine is the basis for which most buyers seek contractual protection, in the form of warranties.

In a sales contract, the law requires that goods proposed for sale must be without defect. Where defective goods are sold to the buyer, it is entitled to claim remedies against the seller. It is an important rule of law that the buyer is entitled to ensure the fitness of goods for its particular purpose and in absence of any requisitions by the buyer, the seller cannot be held liable for any loss. Thus, the seller is not obligated to make disclosure of defects in the goods in the absence of any query by the buyer. The principle goes further to imply that in the absence of proper investigations and a buyer purchases a property with a defective title, or goods with defects, the buyer will not be able to recover damages from the seller.

To ensure the fitness of goods and that a property exists without defects, a buyer must carry out his own investigation, independent of the seller. The following are some of the steps to be taken before a property is purchased in Nigeria:

• engage the services of a solicitor who will carry out searches on the property, investigate the title documents and determine whether or not the property is fit for its intended purpose.
• survey the property with a licensed surveyor
• request to see the original documents

The legal implication of purchasing a property or goods under a sales contract without the services of a solicitor cannot be overemphasized. For instance, there could be a pending litigation on the property or the property may be unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended. It is therefore necessary for a buyer to engage the services of a solicitor to ensure that there are no encumbrances, restrictions, reservations or defects in any of the transaction documents or the vendor’s title.

So also, for defective goods purchased without due diligence, the buyer will have no recourse to the law to remedy the situation since equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. On the other hand, a warranty clause allows the buyer to claim damages against the seller in the event of sale of defective goods. However, warranty clauses do not excuse a buyer’s failure to exercise due diligence before the purchase of goods. Hence, even though the seller does not have an obligation to disclose defects to the buyer, the seller must make full disclosure where there are requisitions from the buyer. Under the caveat emptor rule, an action for breach of contract requires an express warranty, in the absence of which only an action for fraud can be maintained in the court of law. The same applies to purchase agreements made without warranty clauses.

There are certain exceptions to the principle of caveat emptor:

• fitness for buyer’s purpose
• goods sold by description are presumed to correspond with the description
• implied condition that goods sold in the course of business are of merchantable quality
• implied conditions that goods sold by sample will correspond with the bulk delivered
• fraud or misrepresentation by the seller.

Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad was a creation of the Nigeria Police  to cater and curb the spate of armed robbery that bedeviled Nigeria and Nigerians at the time of creation. In 1992, the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was formed to combat armed robbery and other serious crimes.

Before that, anti-robbery was the responsibility of the Nigeria Police  generally although, from 1984, anti-robbery units existed separately as part of different states’ criminal investigation departments.

Other special units, which went by different names at different times, included the intelligence response team, special tactical squad, counterterrorism unit and force intelligence unit, formed to tackle rising violent crime following the end of the Nigerian civil war in 1970.

By the early 1990s, armed robbers and bandits were terrorizing Lagos and southern Nigeria.

Police officer Simeon Danladi Midenda was in charge of the anti-robbery unit of the criminal investigation department in Benin, southern Nigeria, at the time. He had some success in combating armed robbery, earning a recommendation from the then Inspector General of Police.

With crime on the rise in Lagos, Midenda was transferred there and tasked with uniting the three existing anti-robbery squads operating in the former federal capital into one unit in a bid to break the stronghold of armed gangs. As the new sheriff in town, equipped with 15 officers and two station wagons, Midenda formed an amalgamated unit and named it the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) in 1992.

In the early days of the unit, combat-ready SARS officers operated undercover in plain clothes and plain vehicles without any security or government insignia and did not carry arms in public. Their main job was to monitor radio communications and facilitate successful arrests of criminals.

The Beginning of the Brouhaha

Over times,  SARS   corrupted their way of operation as they deviated from their original schedule of combating criminality to going into private lives of individuals. Emboldened by its new powers, the unit moved on from its main function of carrying out covert operations and began to set up roadblocks, extorting money from citizens. Officers remained in plain clothes but started to carry arms in public.

Over time, the unit has been implicated in widespread human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests, unlawful detention and extortion.

SARS officers then allegedly moved on to targeting and detaining young men for cybercrime or being “online fraudsters”, simply on the evidence of their owning a laptop or smart phone, and then demanding excessive bail fees to let them go.

In 2016, Amnesty International documented its own visit to one of the SARS detention centres in Abuja, situated in a disused abattoir. There, it found 130 detainees living in overcrowded cells and being regularly subjected to methods of torture including hanging, starvations, beatings, shootings and mock executions.

Now, Nigerians say they have had enough. Since 2017, protests have been building momentum across Nigeria, stemming from online advocacy to street protests. The anger about the unit’s activities culminated in a nationwide protest on the streets of 21 states in the month of October, 2020 after a SARS officer allegedly shot a young man in Delta State.

Amid the ongoing protests, President Muhammadu Buhari announced that the unit would be disbanded. But this has not quelled the protests as young people continue to occupy the streets in large numbers demanding the immediate release of arrested protesters, justice for victims of police brutality, the prosecution of accused officers as well as a general salary increase for the police force to reduce corruption.

Young protesters say they have heard it all before. This is not the first time the government had disbanded SARS and promised holistic reforms.

In 2006 and 2008, presidential committees proposed recommendations for reforming the Nigeria Police.

In 2009, the Nigerian minister of justice and attorney general of the federation convened a National Committee on Torture to examine allegations of torture and unlawful killings but made little headway. In October 2010, the then Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan, allocated 71 billion Naira for police reforms.

In 2016, the Inspector General of the Nigeria Police Force announced broad reforms to correct SARS units’ use of excessive force and failure to follow due process.

Recommendations to prevent future unrest

The followings are recommended to prevent future unrest and bringing economy to a halt.

a.       The ongoing panel of enquiries set up by various states and federal government should not be swept under the carpet as it has been the tradition in the country of the outcome of the previous panels.

b.      The officers who are found wanting of any misdeed should be made to face the full wrath of the law and not enjoying the back patting of doing the wrong acts in the line of duty.

c.       Public apology should be given to all the victims of police brutality whether alive or death to show minimal level of   justice.

d.      The promise of adequate reforms of the Nigeria Police forms should be immediate and commensurate.

e.       Remuneration of the police in terms of their salary and welfare; funding should be in tandem with global best practices.

f.        Psychological reorientation of the officers should be routinely carried out.

g.      The Complaint Response Unit (CRU) of the Nigeria Police Force should be equipped and functional.

h.      The Police are meant to be protector of personal and properties of Nigerians not dehumanizing and degrading them.

i.        There should be an effective database on complaints and discipline management.

j.        Police should treat Nigerians with respect and dignity.

k.      The family of officers who had paid the supreme price as a result of this saga should be well taking care, so as to serve as morale booster to other officers who are in the line of duty.

l.        The businesses and persons who suffered the aftermath of the protest should be economically empowered.

written by Ahmed Jimoh Opalekunde esq.