The National Industrial Court (NIC), Port Harcourt Division, sitting in Owerri, has dismissed a suit seeking the reinstatement of a police corporal who was discharged and acquitted of murder by the High Court, ruling that his criminal acquittal did not automatically restore his employment with the Nigeria Police Force.
Hon. Justice Nelson Ogbuanya, in a judgment on a suit filed by Corporal Iwatt against the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector-General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State, upheld the officer’s dismissal following disciplinary proceedings over the death of a woman at a police checkpoint.
The judge held that the central issue before the NIC was not whether Iwatt was criminally liable for murder, but whether his conduct during the incident rendered him unsuitable to continue serving as a police officer entrusted with a firearm.
From facts, Iwatt had argued that his dismissal was based on the murder allegation and that his subsequent discharge and acquittal by the High Court entitled him to return to the police.
According to the evidence before the court, Iwatt was armed with a sub-machine gun loaded with eight rounds of ammunition at a stop-and-search point. Five rounds were fired at a Volkswagen vehicle, resulting in the death of a woman inside the vehicle.
Iwatt had maintained during the police orderly room proceedings that the shooting was accidental. He said a red vehicle approached the checkpoint at high speed and that, while attempting to avoid being hit, he jumped and struck his leg against a tyre being used as a barrier. He claimed that as he fell, the rifle dropped from his hand and discharged.
Justice Ogbuanya, however, rejected the argument, drawing a distinction between criminal responsibility and employment or disciplinary responsibility. Justice Ogbuanya found the explanation difficult to reconcile with the circumstances of the incident and the disciplinary charge against the officer. The judge particularly noted that Iwatt did not disprove the allegation that his rifle was loaded with eight rounds and that five rounds had been fired.
The court consequently considered whether an officer who, by his own account, had discharged five of eight rounds from his service rifle could safely be entrusted with a firearm again. Justice Ogbuanya described the rifle as a “work tool” entrusted to the officer for the performance of an important public duty.
The judge ruled that the subsequent criminal acquittal did not resolve the separate employment question of whether Iwatt remained fit and capable of responsibly handling a firearm in the course of police duties.
Justice Ogbuanya further held that the defence of “accidental discharge” could not, in the circumstances, shield an officer whose conduct demonstrated recklessness in the handling of a service weapon. He also observed that deaths resulting from alleged accidental discharges by police officers during stop-and-search operations remained a recurring concern.
The judge also relied on the report of the Divisional Police Officer, who had recommended Iwatt’s dismissal and described him as an officer who had repeatedly brought the image of the police into disrepute. Justice Ogbuanya said the report reinforced the circumstances disclosed during the orderly room proceedings.
On whether the orderly room trial was conducted with due process and fair hearing aspect of rules of natural justice observed, Hon. Justice Ogbuanya stated that:
Along that benchmark, I have reviewed the Orderly room trial proceedings, tendered in evidence and marked as “exh.C2”, and find no infraction of requisite due process and observance of fair hearing principles of the rules of natural justice, in that the Claimant was involved and actively participated in the trial proceedings, and cross-examined all prosecution witnesses and was not denied fair hearing. I so hold.
The court consequently upheld the punishment of dismissal, declaring it proper and deserving.
The judgment also addressed the broader distinction between criminal proceedings and disciplinary action arising from employment. The NIC noted that an acquittal means that the prosecution failed to establish the criminal charge to the required standard, but does not necessarily prevent an employer from considering the underlying conduct when determining whether an employee remains suitable for a sensitive position.
In Iwatt’s case, the court held that while the High Court’s acquittal resolved the criminal allegation against him, it did not determine whether the police were entitled to discipline him over the handling of his service weapon.
Hon. Justice Ogbuanya ultimately answered that question in favour of the police, holding that an officer’s criminal acquittal and reliance on accidental discharge did not, in the circumstances, entitle him to reinstatement where his handling of a firearm was found to be reckless.
The decision leaves Iwatt’s dismissal intact, with his claims for reinstatement, restoration of rank and accrued benefits all dismissed.