DO YOU KNOW SERIES PART 3
Welcome Dear Readers,
On today’s episode, we take a look at the historical context and development of the Miranda rights. More specifically, we address whether or not suspects/arrested persons still possess certain rights at law upon arrest. Now let’s begin with a beautiful and all-encompassing story for easier illustration.
On a scorching afternoon the 25th Day of July 2023 at the heart of Ikeja, Lagos state, Nigeria, Mr Bayo Adetomiwa is thrust into the van of the Nigeria police vehicle, arrested and led away from the scene. What did he do? Why was he taken away? These were the soft murmurs of community members who witnessed the scene. Mr Bayo was hereon taken to the detention facility on grounds of kidnapping and assault of his neighbour’s 5-year-old daughter. He remained in the facility unaware of his legal right to be statutorily informed by the police officers in question. In the stark, dark and intimidating interrogation room, Bayo faced relentless questioning and pressures, still clueless about his right to remain silent or request the presence of his lawyer.
We have often heard the popular phrases in our movie time or Television series which goes thus;
‘You are under arrest for (the offence) you have the right to remain silent anything you say or do shall be used against you in the court of law you have a right to an attorney and if you don’t have one, one will be provided for you the state.’
These rights are called the Miranda right and originated from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v Arizona. These rights express the rationale that a suspect or arrested accused person retains these rights even though in actuality he may be guilty or not guilty eventually to be decided by the court of law. In this, an arrested suspect must compulsorily be informed of the reason for his arrest in terms of the crime else such arrest is unlawful and invalid. Also, he cannot to compelled to speak for or against his defence without allowed consultation with this lawyer. Primarily, this is to prevent prejudice against the arrested suspect as whatever he does or says is valid evidence when he is officially charged to court.
Furthermore, the legal right to an attorney connotes the constitutional right of every person to be defended whether proven guilty or innocent and even if there are financial constraint that may prevent this, the state in its benevolence provides on through its defence system. This state provided counsels are oftentimes called public defenders.
Let’s now take a trip down memory lane to the facts of principal case, Miranda and Arizona
In this case, the Pheonix police department, Arizona on March 13th 1963 arrested a man named Ernesto Miranda on the basis of kidnap and rape of an 18-year-old woman. Miranda was in police custody for over two hours and afterwards signed a confession of rape charges. The police officers failed and neglected informing Miranda of his legal right to counsel or his right to remain silent. A trial, the signed confession was offered in evidence to prove his guilt and his court appointed lawyer objected to the voluntariness of the statement obtained. This was on the basis of the police officers’ neglect. Although Miranda was later on convicted for the offence, the outcome of this historic event marked a turning point in America making a 5th amendment to its constitution known as the Miranda Rights.
Notwithstanding that these rights originally noted and constitutionally established by the USA who termed it the Miranda right, nations all over the world have gone on to act upon these rights giving them legal force and backing as well within their legal system.
As such in Nigeria, by the provisions of Section 35(2)(3), any person arrested or detained has the right to remain silent or even avoid answering any question until after due consultation with a lawyer or any other person of his choice. In addition, a person who is arrested or detained must be informed in writing within 24 hours in a language that he understands of the facts and grounds for his arrest or detention.
In conclusion, the application of Miranda right is a critical aspect in the judicial determination of a suspect’s guilt or innocence, thus, appropriate implementation is necessary. Although there have been instances where suspects are denied these rights or are tortured to make confessions violating their right to silence, the court stands as that reckoning authority such that even though they are denied, it corrects these nuances.
And now you know. Has there been instances where you have seen or witnessed these rights violated by officers of the law? Do share in the comment session.
I trust that you enjoyed this edition. Please give a clap or many claps and kindly share with others as well. Let’s spread this knowledge guys.
