When it comes to the right to privacy and law enforcement, the landscape can be intricate. In this post, we will simplify the concept, helping you comprehend the delicate equilibrium between your rights and the circumstances under which they can be suspended to facilitate investigations.
The General Rule: Warrant is Necessary
The starting point is that law enforcement agencies usually need a warrant to search someone’s premises if they suspect criminal activity. However, it’s essential to know that this warrant isn’t something they can just grab; they must follow a legal process.
Obtaining a Search Warrant
To get a search warrant, law enforcement must go through a specific procedure. A court of law is the only authority that can issue a warrant. This means that they have to present their case to a judge or magistrate, explaining why they believe a search is necessary.
The Right to Privacy
Searches conducted on premises without a warrant are considered unlawful and unconstitutional. Such actions violate an individual’s right to privacy, as protected by Section 37 of the Constitution. This section explicitly states that citizens’ privacy in their homes, communications, and correspondences is guaranteed and protected.
Limits on Constitutional Rights
While privacy rights are crucial, they are not absolute. Section 45(1) of the Constitution outlines conditions under which these rights can be restricted. These conditions include situations related to defense, public safety, public order, public morality, and public health, as well as the protection of the rights and freedom of other individuals.
Legal Precedent: Hassan V. EFCC (2013)
A noteworthy legal case, Hassan V. EFCC (2013), emphasizes that the Constitution is not meant to protect individuals accused of committing criminal offenses from investigation and prosecution. Instead, it strikes a balance between personal rights and the necessity of law enforcement agencies to perform their duties.
Facts of the Case:
The EFCC having received an information alleging that the appellants were selling fake currencies, sought and obtained a search warrant from Chief Magistrate Court 4 wherein they were authorized to carry out a search on the appellants’ premises in order to ascertain the veracity of the appellants.
In the course of executing the said warrant at the appellants premises, fake currency amounting to the tune of N37,500.00 was discovered and consequently the 2nd – 5th appellants who were in occupation of the said premises at that particular time of the search were arrested by the operatives of the EFCC.
The appellants argued that the raid was an infringement of their constitutional right to privacy, and this right was sacrosanct and protected by law. However, the court held that the intention of the law is not to protect individuals accused of committing criminal offences from investigation and prosecution.
Conclusion
In simple terms, while your privacy is crucial, it’s not an impenetrable shield when there needs to be an investigation of criminal activity. The law aims to strike a balance between safeguarding personal rights and allowing law enforcement agencies to perform their duties in certain situations.
Case reference: Hassan V. EFCC (2013) LPELR-22595 (CA)
Don’t forget to share this post using any of the buttons below.
Follow the Law Centriole WhatsApp Channel to get early update about new posts.