The Legality of Predictive Policing in Nigeria: Innovation or Invasion of Rights

Introduction

In an era where technology is reshaping every aspect of human existence, policing is not left behind. Around the world, law enforcement agencies are increasingly turning to technology-driven methods to prevent crime and enhance public safety. One such emerging method is predictive policing, which utilizes data analysis, algorithms, and artificial intelligence to forecast potential criminal activity. By analyzing patterns from past crimes, this system claims to help authorities deploy resources more effectively and, in some cases, prevent crime before it occurs.

While some see predictive policing as a necessary innovation to tackle Nigeria’s growing security challenges – from insurgency to kidnapping and urban crime – others warn of the potential for abuse, privacy violations, and human rights infringements. Nigeria currently lacks a clear legal framework regulating the use of such technology, raising critical questions: Can predictive policing be lawfully implemented in Nigeria? Does it promise safety or signal a dangerous slide towards unlawful surveillance and pre-emptive justice? This article explores these questions by examining predictive policing through the lens of Nigerian constitutional rights and legal standards.

1. Legal Framework in Nigeria

1.1. Constitutional Provisions

• Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Section 33 and Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) protect citizens from arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty.
• Right to Privacy: Section 37 of the Constitution guarantees the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications.
• Right to Fair Hearing: Section 36 ensures that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty and are entitled to fair trial procedures.

1.2. Statutory Provisions

Statutory Provisions

• The Nigeria Police Act, 2020: The Act provides the general powers of the police to prevent crime, maintain public order, and protect lives and property. However, it does not specifically address the use of data-driven policing methods or the limits of surveillance.
• Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019: Issued by the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), the NDPR governs the collection, processing, and storage of personal data in Nigeria. Predictive policing operations involving personal data must comply with these regulations to avoid breaches of privacy.

1.3. Existing Gaps

The absence of explicit legislation on predictive policing creates legal uncertainty. Without defined boundaries, there is a risk of arbitrary policing practices that may infringe on constitutionally guaranteed rights.

2. Potential Human Rights Concerns

2.1. Privacy Violations

The collection of vast amounts of data, often without the knowledge or consent of individuals, poses a clear threat to privacy. Predictive policing systems may rely on location data, communication records, social media activity, and other personal information, thereby encroaching upon the constitutional right to privacy under Section 37.

2.2. Erosion of the Presumption of Innocence

Predictive policing may result in individuals being targeted, profiled, or subjected to increased surveillance, not based on actual criminal conduct but on algorithmic predictions. This undermines the presumption of innocence enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution, effectively treating individuals as suspects without due process.

2.3. Discrimination and Bias

If predictive algorithms are trained on biased or incomplete data, they may reinforce existing social prejudices. For example, communities already over-policed due to socio-economic or ethnic factors may face heightened criticism, deepening mistrust between citizens and law enforcement.

2.4. Lack of Transparency and Accountability

Predictive policing systems often operate as “black boxes,” with little understanding of how decisions are made. Without transparency, individuals would find it difficult to challenge unfair targeting or unlawful data collection, leaving them vulnerable to abuse.

3. Innovation Potential and Security Realities

Nigeria faces complex security challenges, and predictive policing brings about a solution for more proactive crime prevention. By analyzing crime patterns, law enforcement could allocate resources more efficiently, deter crime, and improve response times.

However, Nigeria’s institutional realities – limited technical capacity, weak data protection, and public mistrust – pose significant obstacles. Without legal safeguards, innovation may become violations rather than improved security.

4. Comparative Perspective

United States

Predictive policing programs like PredPol have faced backlash over racial profiling and a lack of transparency. Some cities have discontinued these programs.

European Union

The EU’s GDPR and proposed AI Act impose strict oversight on AI-driven policing to protect privacy and fundamental rights.

China

China’s use of predictive policing as part of its mass surveillance has drawn international criticism for human rights abuses.

South Africa

Still at the discussion stage, with emphasis on legislative reform and rights-based safeguards before deployment.

Lessons for Nigeria

Nigeria must avoid the pitfalls of unregulated predictive policing by implementing robust legal frameworks, ensuring algorithmic transparency, and prioritizing human rights.

5. Recommendations

5.1. Enactment of Specific Legislation

Nigeria urgently needs a dedicated legal framework to regulate the use of predictive policing and other AI-driven technologies in law enforcement. Such legislation should clearly define the scope, limitations, and permissible use of these technologies, with safeguards to prevent abuse.

5.2. Strengthening Data Protection Laws

The existing Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) should be strengthened through comprehensive data protection legislation, similar to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Such a law should guarantee individuals’ control over their data and establish strict conditions for its use by law enforcement.

5.3. Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability

Any predictive policing system must be subjected to rigorous oversight to ensure that the algorithms used are transparent, unbiased, and subjected to regular independent audits. The public should have access to information on how these technologies function and how decisions are made.

5.4. Judicial Oversight and Human Rights Impact Assessment

Law enforcement agencies should not be permitted to deploy predictive policing technologies without judicial authorization. Furthermore, a mandatory human rights impact assessment should be conducted before adopting such systems to ensure they comply with constitutional guarantees.

5.5. Public Education and Stakeholder Engagement

There must be robust public sensitization to inform citizens of their rights and the safeguards in place. Civil society organizations, legal practitioners, technology experts, and human rights advocates should be involved in shaping the regulatory framework.

Reference(S):

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended).
• Nigeria Data Protection Regulation 2019 (NDPR), National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA).
• Nigeria Police Act, 2020.
• European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679.
• Ferguson, A. G., The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement, NYU Press, 2017.
• Amnesty International, “Surveillance Giants: How the Business Model of Google and Facebook Threatens Human Rights” (2019).
• United Nations, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Law Enforcement, 2021.
• Kuner, C., “The European Union and the Search for an International Data Protection Framework”, 2013, Groningen Journal of International Law, Vol. 1(1).