The ₦50,000 Traffic-Stop Sting
At 2:05 p.m., Officer Danjuma, a traffic police sergeant, stops a driver, Mr. Eze, for expired vehicle papers. Danjuma tells him, 'Pay ₦50,000 now or I impound the car and you will sleep in the cell.' Eze is an EFCC informant. He agrees, and at 2:15 p.m. hands Danjuma five marked ₦10,000 notes. EFCC operatives arrest Danjuma as he puts the money in his shirt pocket. No receipt is issued. The notes' serial numbers were recorded before the meeting. Danjuma says he was only 'testing' Eze and intended to return the money; he also says the EFCC induced him, so it is entrapment. The marked notes are recovered. Eze's recording captures the demand and payment. Danjuma has no authority to impound for expired papers without a court order.
1. What offence(s) may Danjuma be charged with, and what must the prosecution prove?
Read the worked answer
Danjuma is a public officer. The core offence is corrupt demand and acceptance of a gratification. The prosecution must prove that he demanded ₦50,000, that the demand was connected with his official duties, that he accepted the marked notes, and that he did so corruptly. The recording, the marked notes recovered from his pocket, and Eze's testimony provide strong evidence.
His claim that he was 'testing' Eze is not credible if he put the money in his pocket and had already threatened impoundment and detention. The threat may also support an extortion-type charge if the arrest or impoundment was unlawful; the facts state he had no authority to impound for expired papers without a court order. But the most straightforward charge is official corruption or bribery. The prosecution does not need to show that he actually did the favour; acceptance of the gratification is enough. The fact that Eze was an EFCC informant does not make the demand lawful. The charge should specify the statute under which he is prosecuted and the particulars of the demand and acceptance.
2. Does entrapment avail Danjuma? Explain the difference between inducing an offence and providing an opportunity.
Read the worked answer
Entrapment is not a substantive defence in Nigerian criminal law. It does not ordinarily entitle an accused to acquittal, though a court may consider whether the conduct of the investigators was so oppressive that evidence should be excluded in the interests of justice. The key distinction is between inducing a person to commit an offence he was not otherwise disposed to commit and providing an opportunity to commit an offence he was already willing to commit.
Here, Danjuma initiated the demand. Eze did not suggest the bribe; he merely agreed and alerted the EFCC. The marked notes and recording were means of documenting a transaction that Danjuma himself proposed. That is an opportunity, not inducement. His 'testing' explanation is also inconsistent with pocketing the money and with the threat to impound the car and detain Eze.
Unless he can show that EFCC officers pressured or persuaded him into a course he would not otherwise have taken, entrapment will not assist him. The court is likely to admit the evidence and convict.