The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has condemned the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu’s reported shoot-on-sight directive against persons found carrying illegal firearms, describing the order as unconstitutional, reckless and capable of fuelling extrajudicial killings.
The rights group urged Disu to immediately withdraw the directive, arguing that the Nigeria Police Force has no constitutional authority to summarily execute citizens merely on suspicion that they are carrying unlicensed weapons.
HURIWA’s National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, said on Saturday that the IGP’s directive could not override the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which remains the supreme law of the land.
The group’s reaction followed Disu’s reported announcement of a sweeping directive to police personnel during a security stakeholders’ meeting at the Benue State Government House in Makurdi.
The IGP reportedly said the directive was part of efforts to implement President Bola Tinubu’s order to halt the killings and armed attacks in Benue State.
Disu was quoted as saying that people could not continue to move around freely with arms “as if there is no law and order in this country,” insisting that the era of passive policing was over.
He reportedly invoked Force Order 237, the police regulation governing the use of firearms and force, saying officers had been authorised to act decisively against armed threats without waiting for orders from superior officers.
But HURIWA said Force Order 237 could not confer powers on the police that are inconsistent with the Constitution.
The organisation cited Section 33(1) of the Constitution, which provides that every person has a right to life and shall not be intentionally deprived of life except in execution of a sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction following conviction for a criminal offence.
According to HURIWA, the constitutional protection means that the mere allegation or suspicion that a person is carrying an unlicensed weapon cannot automatically justify the use of lethal force.
‘IGP cannot be judge, prosecutor and executioner’
Onwubiko warned that the directive could create a dangerous environment in which armed police officers interpret the order as permission to kill anyone seen carrying a firearm, without first establishing whether the weapon is legally held or whether the individual poses an imminent threat.
“The IGP does not have the constitutional competence to act as a judge, prosecutor and executioner in cases involving persons accused of carrying unlicensed weapons,” HURIWA said.
The group argued that unlawful possession of firearms is a matter to be investigated and prosecuted under the relevant laws and does not carry an automatic punishment of death at the hands of police officers.
It further questioned the necessity of publicly issuing a blanket shoot-on-sight directive when police officers already have legal powers to use force, including lethal force where strictly necessary to confront an imminent threat to life.
The rights organisation also warned that an indiscriminate interpretation of the directive could put lawfully constituted community security personnel and vigilante groups at risk.
It questioned how police officers were expected to determine, “at sight”, whether an armed person was an authorised community security operative, a licensed firearm holder, a vigilante member or an armed criminal.
HURIWA argued that a blanket directive to shoot anyone seen carrying weapons could therefore produce fatal mistakes, particularly in communities where local security groups operate alongside conventional security agencies.
The organisation said the police must distinguish between the lawful use of firearms in response to an immediate threat and an open-ended instruction that could be interpreted as authorisation to kill based merely on possession.
HURIWA insisted that no police regulation, standing order or administrative directive can supersede the 1999 Constitution.
It therefore rejected the reported reliance on Force Order 237 as justification for a general shoot-on-sight policy, arguing that any use of lethal force must remain subject to constitutional safeguards, necessity, proportionality and the circumstances permitted by law.
The group warned that given longstanding concerns over alleged police misconduct and excessive use of force, the directive could have serious consequences if poorly understood or deliberately abused by armed personnel.
HURIWA urged the IGP to immediately withdraw what it described as a “reckless, unlawful and unconstitutional” order and instead issue clear operational guidelines that distinguish between legitimate use of force against an immediate threat and the unlawful killing of suspects.
The group maintained that the fight against insecurity must not become a justification for abandoning constitutional protections.
“Security agencies must protect lives, not acquire a licence to take lives outside the law,” HURIWA said.