Smear campaigns against police officers are becoming disturbingly common, eroding both public confidence and the morale of those tasked with upholding the law.
The recent case involving Investigative Police Officers illustrates how easily facts can be twisted into scandal, with damaging consequences for both individuals and institutions.
This is not the first time an investigation has been weaponized against its investigators. Just recently, individuals implicated in wrongdoing filed a suit against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) simply for acting on a legitimate petition. That case eventually revealed the complainants were the very subjects of the alleged offense.
Now, we are seeing the same playbook used again—this time to smear a group of police officers, including a Deputy Inspector General of Police with an excellent record of service, his personnel, and the investigative team. The matter stems from a commercial dispute involving a failed N819 million supply transaction and a shortfall of N150.7 million between two firms. The firm had taken aggressive steps to recover the funds, both from the vendor and from one of its own employees, a procurement officer.
However, the employee, a foreign national, petitioned the police regarding the treatment meted out to him by his employers. In his petition, he alleged grave human rights infringements, including the seizure of his international passport and non-payment of his ten-month salary, among others.
The petition, addressed to the IGP, formed the raison d’être for the police investigation. Instead of focusing on the substance of that dispute, attention has been redirected to allegations that the investigators demanded a bribe from the vendor.
But contrary to trending online media publications on the alleged bribery, a thorough review of the case reveals no evidence of bribery whatsoever.
The police investigation, initiated by a petition on the subject matter, culminated in the vendor’s arraignment in court. He was remanded in Keffi Prison and later granted bail. One of the interested parties is now a prosecution witness against the principal suspect. So far, these are lawful, transparent investigative steps—not acts of extortion.
The foreign national has stated his side of the case concisely in his petition. This is plainly a matter for the courts to determine, not for trial by media. And thus far, the police have simply performed their constitutional role. The troubling issue here is not the commercial dispute but the narrative being manufactured.
Rather than reporting the facts, some outlets have chosen to sensationalize and mislead, creating a perception of police harassment and extortion where none exists.
This approach carries broader implications: it undermines legitimate investigations, discourages officers from taking on sensitive cases, and feeds public skepticism about policing as a whole.
Media scrutiny is necessary and healthy in any democracy. Police accountability is vital, and investigative journalism plays a crucial role in exposing genuine misconduct. However, accountability is not the same as sensationalism.
Publishing allegations without proper context or ignoring evidence that exonerates officers is not holding power to account—it is distorting it. If such smear tactics are normalized, it is ordinary citizens who will ultimately suffer.
When officers fear backlash for simply doing their jobs, crime flourishes, and justice becomes negotiable. What is needed is balance: transparent policing, responsible reporting, and consequences for deliberate misinformation.
The investigators should not have to defend themselves against unfounded bribery claims when the evidence shows their innocence.
Likewise, media organizations must uphold the standard of verifying facts before publication. Policing is already a challenging profession; adding baseless smear campaigns only weakens our collective pursuit of justice.
