Police-Citizen Relations in Nigeria: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Law-Abiding Behaviour (Palgrave's Critical Policing Studies) 3030929183, 9783030929183

Citation preview

PALGRAVE’S CRITICAL POLICING STUDIES

Police-Citizen Relations in Nigeria Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Law-Abiding Behaviour Oluwagbenga Michael Akinlabi

Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies

Series Editors Elizabeth Aston School of Applied Sciences Edinburgh Napier University Edinburgh, UK Michael Rowe Department of Social Sciences Newcastle City Campus Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

In a period where police and academics benefit from coproduction in research and education, the need for a critical perspective on key ­challenges is pressing. Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies is a series of high quality, research-based books which examine a range of cutting-edge challenges and developments to policing and their social and political contexts. They seek to provide evidence-based case studies and high ­quality research, combined with critique and theory, to address fundamental challenging questions about future directions in policing. Through a range of formats including monographs, edited collections and short form Pivots, this series provides research at a variety of lengths to suit both academics and practitioners. The series brings together new topics at the forefront of policing scholarship but is also organised around who the contemporary police are, what they do, how they go about it, and the ever-changing external environments which bear upon their work. The series will cover topics such as: the purpose of policing and public expectations, public health approaches to policing, policing of cyber-­ crime, environmental policing, digital policing, social media, Artificial Intelligence and big data, accountability of complex networks of actors involved in policing, austerity, public scrutiny, technological and social changes, over-policing and marginalised groups, under-policing and corporate crime, institutional abuses, policing of climate change, ethics, workforce, education, evidence-based policing, and the pluralisation of policing. More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/16586

Oluwagbenga Michael Akinlabi

Police-Citizen Relations in Nigeria Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Law-Abiding Behaviour

Oluwagbenga Michael Akinlabi Department of Social Sciences Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

ISSN 2730-535X     ISSN 2730-5368 (electronic) Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies ISBN 978-3-030-92918-3    ISBN 978-3-030-92919-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92919-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and ­transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Sean Gladwell / GettyImages This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

In memory of My dad, the first police officer I knew who served with honesty and integrity. To him, our family name is worth more than any pecuniary advantage. My mum, who held the fort on several occasions when dad was away on special courses and assignments, who believed so much in dad, and was willing to traverse the length and breadth of Nigeria with him. I owe so much to them.

Foreword

The relationship between the police and the policed, its antecedents, consequents, quality, contours, and strength, is central to both the practice and the academic investigation of policing. To engage in police work, activity oriented towards the reproduction of normative social order conducted by (usually uniformed) professional state actors, is to govern populations, and the reactions of the public(s) affected are fundamental to understanding what police are about, their success or failure, and the nature of the contribution they make to social order. All policing is in this sense relational—it is certainly impossible to think about police work without also thinking about its objects and these are always, in the final analysis, us. It is therefore not surprising that legitimacy is considered central to the role of police, to the success and continued existence of specific organizations, and to understanding the place of the institution of police within the social, economic, political, and cultural frameworks that it is formed by and formative of. This is true from normative perspectives that concern themselves with, for example, asking whether as a matter of philosophical or political judgement police have the legal, moral, and/or ethical right to intervene in people’s lives. And it is true from empirical perspectives, which ask whether the people actually governed by police— ‘the public’, ‘citizens’—believe these things to be the case. vii

viii Foreword

In this book, Oluwagbenga Michael Akinlabi concerns himself with the empirical notion of legitimacy that, broadly defined, refers to the right to rule and the recognition of that right by the ruled. Here, the claims is that when people make judgements about the legitimacy of the police they ask themselves: does this institution behave in ways I approve of; does it share my sense of right and wrong; and does it follow the rules and norms I think it should? Together, these judgements form people’s sense of normative alignment with police—their sense that police share their own moral values and normative perspectives. On many accounts, answers to the questions posed above immediately imply a second set of judgements concerning the reciprocal relationship between police and policed, and the extent to which people feel they have a responsibility, need, or moral duty to support police, obey officers and the rules they enforce, and so on. This second set of judgements is often parsed as the perceived duty to obey police. The current literature on police legitimacy is marked by four features. First, there is very widespread evidence that the most important antecedent of legitimacy is procedural justice. When people are asking themselves whether police share their own sense of right and wrong, and play by the rules, they attend most closely to their experience, perception, or understanding that officers make decisions in a fair, neutral, and unbiased manner, allow people a voice in decisions and discussions that affect them, and treat people with dignity and respect. Results from a wide range of studies suggest consistent, strong, and durable associations between procedural justice and legitimacy. Second, extant literature based on the dual component understanding of legitimacy outlined above, or on cognate accounts that stress slightly different conceptualizations, but which retain the same underlying set of ideas, consistently links legitimacy to outcomes such as cooperation, deference, and compliance with the law. In some senses such outcomes are wrapped up in the definition of legitimacy itself, since it both implies and explains why people voluntarily comply with power, even to the extent of refraining from actions that might be individually or collectively beneficial to them, or undertaking actions that come with associated risks or disbenefits. As the title of the seminal book in the field has it, legitimacy

 Foreword 

ix

is one of the things that help explain Why People Obey the Law (Tyler, 2006) when it may well not be in their personal interests to do so. Another, and in a sense more policy-relevant claim, is that (a) changes in experiences of perceptions of procedural justice generate changes in legitimacy, and (b) that incremental change in legitimacy generates incremental change in compliance behaviours. The relevance here for police reform efforts, and for attempts to promote compliance with legal and other regulations in target populations, is obvious. Yet, while both these claims have found widespread empirical support (Bolger & Walters, 2019; Walters & Bolger, 2019) they remain somewhat contested. In particular, while there are very good theoretical reasons for suggesting that police legitimacy will be linked to compliance with the law, and much correlational evidence to support this (e.g., Jackson et al., 2012), it has been argued that the lack of experimental evidence of such an effect renders some of the stronger claims in this field problematic (Nagin & Telep, 2020). Third, there is significant debate in the field as to what the ‘duty to obey’ component of legitimacy actually means, whether it can be separated from other reasons for deference and compliance such as the threat of force, habit, or ‘dull compulsion’, and what all this says about how legitimacy can be conceptualized and operationalized. Some—including myself—argue that so long as the duty to obey is couched in terms of moral duty, and refers to people’s sense there is an imperative that they obey the instructions of police that is founded in an alignment of normative values, then the duty to obey is indeed a component of legitimacy. It is, precisely, the recognition of appropriately constituted power and authority. Indeed, the very idea of legitimacy would seem to mean very little if it does not wrap up, or at least directly concern, voluntary compliance with the dictates of power holders. Yet this is not a universally held view, and debate in this area is ongoing. Fourth, while this is a rapidly expanding field of research it also remains one concentrated in the global north. While we have a wealth of studies from countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, there are far fewer from contexts in the global south. Many of the ideas and arguments sketched out above remain under-explored in less democratic and less developed countries.

x Foreword

This book contributes across all four areas outlined above. Indeed, it takes essentially all of these ongoing arguments and explores them in a context, Nigeria, where very little empirical research on these issues has been conducted. In doing so, it contextualizes its consideration of police legitimacy in multiple ways, perhaps most fundamentally in terms of how the very concept current in the literature, its antecedents and consequents, might play out in a non-democratic state and relation to an often corrupt, ineffective, and violent police organization. What emerges is a complex and sometimes contradictory picture— because public opinion and police–public relations are complex and sometimes contradictory—which, nonetheless, contains some important messages for all those working in this field. For me, two things leap out. First, and arguably despite the nature of the context, procedural justice remains important. This may, among other things, speak to the idea that process fairness is a very widespread normative expectation placed on those in authority—it is how a very great many of us think power holders should behave. Second, in many of the statistical models presented, it is procedural justice, perceptions of police effectiveness, and other specific judgements of police behaviour, not legitimacy, that are associated with outcomes such as cooperation and compliance. Among other things, this seems to suggest that a form of norm reciprocity—an understanding that police are behaving appropriately and that one should do the same—may be in play which escapes, bypasses, or replaces the role of legitimacy, at least as the latter is currently commonly measured. This would be a hugely fruitful area for further research as, indeed, would many of the other ideas put forward in the chapters that follow. Police–Citizen Relations in Nigeria represents an important contribution to the field, and I hope it will inspire others to follow its in-depth, nuanced, and deeply contextualized investigation of legitimacy and its consequences. JDI Institute for Global City Policing, Department of Security and Crime Science University College London London, UK

Ben Bradford

 Foreword 

xi

References Bolger, P.  C., & Walters, G.  D. (2019). The Relationship Between Police Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and People’s Willingness to Cooperate with Law Enforcement: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.01.001 Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do People Comply with the Law?: Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azs032 Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2020). Procedural Justice and Legal Compliance. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1745-9133.12499 Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press. Walters, G.  D., & Bolger, P.  C. (2019). Procedural Justice Perceptions, Legitimacy Beliefs, and Compliance with the Law: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 341–372. ­ https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11292-018-9338-2

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives and in Contemporary Society 11 3 Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness to Cooperate with the Police 25 4 Can Procedural Justice Nurture Young People’s Perceptions of Police Legitimacy? 57 5 Use of Force, Corruption, and Implication for Trust in the Police 97 6 Procedural (In)justice, Police Abuse of Power, and Public Cynicism about the Law127 7 Why Do Nigerians Comply with the Law? Assessing the Intersection between Dull Compulsion, Perceived Legitimacy, and Compliance with the Law153

xiii

xiv Contents

8 Public Satisfaction with the Police: A Study of Normative Expectations, Procedural Justice, and Treatment Outcome in Nigeria183 9 Predatory Policing, Police Abuse, and Implications for Trust and Cooperation with Police205 10 Conclusion239 Index247

About the Author

Oluwagbenga Michael Akinlabi  is Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Criminal Justice at the Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University in the United Kingdom. He received his PhD in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Griffith University in Australia on full international scholarship. Prior to this, he had completed a Master of Philosophy degree in Criminological Research from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, Master of Science in Clinical Psychology from the University of Ibadan in Nigeria and Bachelor of Education in Guidance and Counselling (with minors in Geography) also from the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. Within the last fifteen years, Michael has taught and led large undergraduate and postgraduate courses in policing and social control, prisons and punishment, crimes against humanity, media and crime, intelligence and security, criminology and national security and police psychology. He has successfully attracted more than 17 scholarships, grants, recognition and awards in Nigeria, United Kingdom and Australia: including the prestigious British Commonwealth Scholarships, Australian Postgraduate Awards and the Australian Government’s Endeavour Executive Fellowships. Michael’s research interests include procedural justice and police legitimacy, policing the Global South, police use of force, corruption and accountability, policing youths and

xv

xvi 

About the Author

ethnic minorities, crime and psychopathology and stress in police. Specifically, his current research has been exploring how perceptions of justice and fairness, corruption and feelings of trust can go a long way to influence compliance and/or cynicism about the law.

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 7.1

Demographic structure of the sample 36 Means and standard deviation of each variable items 37 Descriptive statistics and correlations 41 Hierarchical multiple regression model predicting police legitimacy42 Hierarchical multiple regression model predicting cooperation with police 43 Mean and standard deviation of each variable item 75 Descriptive statistics and correlations 83 Hierarchical multiple regression model of police legitimacy 85 Demographic characteristics of the research participants 108 Factors analysis differentiating variables used in the study 111 Means and standard deviation for each variable and scale 112 Percentages of each item in the variables 114 Descriptive statistics and correlations 115 Hierarchical multiple regression of trust in police 117 Demographic characteristics of the research participants 136 Means and standard deviation of each variable items 139 Percentages of each item in the variables 140 Descriptive statistics and correlations 141 Showing hierarchical multiple regression of cynicism towards the police 141 Demographic structure of the sample 161 xvii

xviii 

List of Tables

Table 7.2 Principal component analysis depicting optimal weights of each item in the study Table 7.3 Means and standard deviation for each variable and scale Table 7.4 Bivariate correlations between scales Table 7.5 Predicting dull compulsion and police legitimacy Table 7.6 Predicting self-reported compliance with the law Table 7.7 Collinearity statistics for dull compulsion Table 7.8 Collinearity statistics for police legitimacy Table 7.9 Collinearity statistics for compliance with the law Table 8.1 Demographic structure of the sample Table 8.2 Mean and standard deviation of each variable item Table 8.3 Percentages of each item in variables Table 8.4 Descriptive statistics and correlations Table 8.5 Showing multiple regression of satisfaction with police Table 9.1 Demographic characteristics of the participants Table 9.2 Mean and standard deviation of each variable item Table 9.3 Descriptive statistics and correlations Table 9.4 Showing hierarchical multiple regression of trust in police Table 9.5 Showing hierarchical multiple regression of cooperation with police

165 168 171 172 173 177 178 178 191 193 194 195 195 220 221 224 225 226

1 Introduction

In recent years, questions about police–citizen relations vis-à-vis procedural justice and the perceived legitimacy of legal authorities have been at the forefront of criminology research. Studies, mostly conducted in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom have consistently asked a series of research questions including: ‘How can we improve police–citizen relations in the community?’, ‘How can we use procedural justice policing to improve perceptions of police legitimacy?’, and “Would procedural justice policing and public perceptions of police legitimacy enhance law-abiding behaviours?” (see Cherney & Murphy, 2011; Jackson et al., 2012; Kochel, 2012; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006a; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004; Wolfe et  al., 2015). The importance of these questions cannot be overemphasized as public perceptions of the police are argued to be one of the major reasons why people say they will either comply with the law or do otherwise (see Jackson et al., 2012; Murphy et al., 2009; Tyler, 1990). It is the perception of the police that will either encourage a willingness to cooperate with police or otherwise (Murphy & Cherney, 2011; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Murphy, 2011).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 O. M. Akinlabi, Police-Citizen Relations in Nigeria, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92919-0_1

1

2 

O. M. Akinlabi

Research on police–citizen relations has been centred around the concepts of police legitimacy and has relied heavily on Tyler’s procedural justice approach (see Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990). Legitimacy as commonly defined in political science and other socio-legal literature is the belief that a state, leader, or institution has the right to rule or govern. It is a judgement by an individual or public about the rightfulness of authority and about the power subject’s perceived obligation to obey such authority (Albrow, 1990; Lassman, 2000; Murphy et  al., 2009; Reisig et al., 2012; Weber, 1958). Legitimacy serves as one of the foundations on which law and order can be built in a democratic society (Tyler, 2004). It is very central to a state’s ability to function in a normatively justifiable and effective manner. When the legitimacy of an institution or a state is shared by many individuals, it produces collective positive effects on regulation and social order maintenance (Bradford et al., 2014; Murphy & Cherney, 2011). Over the last few years, studies focusing on the legitimacy of the police have grown exponentially in the criminological and socio-legal literature. Many of these studies have focused on assessing the antecedents and consequent factors of the perceived legitimacy of legal authorities (see Tyler, 1990; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Murphy & Cherney, 2011; Tankebe, 2009a; Wolfe et al., 2015). A dominant model of police legitimacy in the literature today is Tyler’s process-based model of regulation. In his seminal work, Tyler asserts that perceived legitimacy mediates the relationship between people’s perceptions of antecedent factors such as procedural justice and police effectiveness, and outcome variables such as self-­ reported voluntary compliance with the law and self-reported willingness to cooperate with the police (Tyler, 1990, 2006b; Tyler & Huo, 2002). A major component of procedural justice includes people’s judgement about the fairness of procedures used by police. In contrast, police effectiveness is an instrumental factor which assesses the effectiveness of police in discharging their duties in areas of crime control and security (i.e., whether they can deter, prevent, and solve crime). Of these two antecedent factors, Tyler consistently demonstrated that procedural justice is the more important antecedent of police legitimacy ratings by the public, with judgements about police effectiveness appearing less relevant (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990, 2006b; Tyler &

1 Introduction 

3

Huo, 2002). According to Tyler, police legitimacy is based on people’s perceptions about the fairness of the procedures and processes through which the police exercise authority and make decisions about the public (Tyler, 1990; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). This finding has come to be known as Tyler’s Procedural Justice Theory or the ‘Tylerian perspective’. Tyler’s assertion that police legitimacy is shaped more by perceptions of procedural justice than police effectiveness has received only sporadic testing in non-Western societies where procedural justice and social order maintenance is hard to achieve due to the scarcity of resources and less secure policing context. This is evident as there is scant empirical investigation of procedural justice effects on police legitimacy outside Western contexts. Those that do exist report inconsistent results. Some report that procedural justice promotes police legitimacy more than police effectiveness (e.g., Akinlabi, 2017; Bradford et  al., 2014; Kochel et  al., 2013; Tankebe, 2009b), while others do not (e.g., Brockner et  al., 2001; Tankebe, 2009a). Importantly, even studies that examine minority immigrants’ views of police within Western countries suggest procedural justice does not always dominate citizens’ judgements of police legitimacy (e.g., Murphy & Cherney, 2010; Sargeant et  al., 2014). Such findings suggest that the transcultural applicability of the procedural justice theory on legitimacy is not limitless or is, at least, questionable. A review of extant literature on the perceived legitimacy of the police reveals that legitimacy has been measured and conceptualized in many different ways. This indicates a lack of consensus among scholars about what constitutes legitimacy. For example, Tyler’s operational conceptualization of legitimacy varies somewhat across several studies; however the central component of legitimacy in most of his studies is expressed obligation to obey an authority and institutional trust (Tyler, 2006a, b; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Consequently, expressed obligation to obey has become a central feature of recent legitimacy scholarship (Akinlabi, 2017; Kochel et al., 2013; Murphy & Cherney, 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2009a). Although the concept of the ‘obligation to obey’ might be relevant to legitimacy in developed Western democracies where law and order is a given, it is argued here that such a conceptualization of legitimacy may connote a different meaning in developing societies. In jurisdictions

4 

O. M. Akinlabi

where there is widespread police abuse and poor indices of human rights, people may be afraid of the consequences of disobeying the police. Here, they might comply with the law or cooperate with police not because they perceive police as legitimate and feel a moral obligation to do so, but because they fear the consequences of doing otherwise. A police agency might mistake the latter response as an indication that widespread legitimacy and social order is apparent, failing to recognize that the people’s response is borne out of pragmatic acquiescence or what Carrabine (2005) referred to as dull compulsion. Even though there are narratives on how legitimacy might be different from dull compulsion (see Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Carrabine, 2005; Tankebe, 2008), to date there are currently no empirical studies that test whether people in dictatorial societies comply and cooperate with legal authorities because of feelings of dull compulsion. This book will address this issue by developing a conceptual measurement for dull compulsion. The question that arises from this is whether it is dull compulsion rather than a perception of legitimacy which more likely accounts for why people in Nigeria say they would comply with laws or cooperate with police. A third issue addressed in this book is whether in countries like Nigeria factors other than perceptions of procedural justice may be more influential in shaping perceptions of police legitimacy. Studies in Ghana and South Africa, for instance, have found that perceptions of police effectiveness are more predictive of perceptions of police legitimacy than perceptions of procedural justice (Tankebe, 2009a; Bradford et al., 2014). Respondents’ views about other factors arising from the situational and historical context of policing in African countries may similarly be more predictive of perceptions of police legitimacy than perceptions of procedural justice. These might include factors such as the colonial policing legacy, the realities of postcolonial policing, perceived lack of effective crime control, and perceptions of police corruption and brutality. Specifically, in Chap. 2 of the book I establish a clear understanding of Weber’s analysis of legitimate authority in relation to contemporary society. I argue that Max Weber’s analysis of legitimacy was systematically viewed in the direction of bottom-up and top-down belief systems, and that legitimacy is always an attribute conferred on the power holder by the power subject (e.g., a citizen in the context of policing) and for a

1 Introduction 

5

regime to attain or be perceived as legitimate, the power subject must believe that the authority has a valid right to dictate behaviour. In Weber’s views, a positive commitment on the part of the power subject to the dominant group they obey is a cardinal characteristic of legitimacy. Chapter 3 illuminates and expounds a number of significant contributions to the legitimacy and procedural justice literature. It carefully explores whether perceptions of procedural justice are essentially more influential than perceptions of police effectiveness in determining Nigerian citizens’ legitimacy perceptions and expressed willingness to cooperate with police. The results point out that public perceptions of procedural justice were not relevant in encouraging public perceptions of police legitimacy in Nigeria. The research established a more important role for perceived police effectiveness in predicting perceived police legitimacy. Still, public perceptions of procedural justice, in addition to perceived police effectiveness, were discovered to be relevant in predicting Nigerian citizens’ self-reported willingness to cooperate with police. This emerged notwithstanding Nigeria being a country marred with corruption and police abuse. This evidence establishes both the difficulty and the shortcomings of the Procedural Justice Model being used in the contexts of developing countries. Most revealing and enlightening about this study is that, compared with previous research evidence, it contributes to the general claim and argument that significant variations could exist between contexts when measuring the level of influence of procedural justice on perceptions of police legitimacy and self-reported willingness to cooperate with police. In Chap. 4, I assess the strength of the procedural justice effect in comparison with other police behaviour as well as the innate and essential characteristics of young people in Nigeria vis-à-vis perception and judgement of police legitimacy. Using a cross-sectional survey, the study assesses perception of police legitimacy among young people in Nigeria. The result indicated that procedural justice has a significant effect on young people’s perceptions of police legitimacy. It was established that young people who perceived police as using fair procedures were more likely to see police as legitimate.

6 

O. M. Akinlabi

In Chap. 5, I examine police use of force, perceptions of corruption, and the implications for trust in the police. In doing this, I assess everyday problems of policing in Nigeria as objectively as possible, and to operationalize ‘use of force’ in this study, I incorporate constructs such as predatory policing, perceptions of police abuse, and experiences of police abuse. Other important variables in the study include police corruption and trust in the police. The result of the analysis confirms that those who believe that police are corrupt and that they use excessive force have the likelihood of not trusting the police in Nigeria. In other words, public experiences and perceptions of police abuse, perceptions of police corruption, and perceptions of predatory policing will negatively influence trust in police. Chapter 6 constitutes an empirical examination of the everyday problematic of corruption-tinted policing and other associated and correlated abuses in Nigeria, and how these deviant behaviours engender public cynicism towards the law. This chapter sets out with the assumption that if police behaviour deviates from normative expectations, public response will, accordingly, be commensurate with cynicism towards the law. The research findings support this hypothesized argument and, by extension, other related studies in the literature. This study in particular points to the consequences of police corruption, police abuse, and procedural injustice in Nigeria. Chapter 7 begins with an inquisitive premise, asserting whether people living in societies apparently rife with police corruption do really comply with the law because they perceive police as legitimate, or because of their feelings of endemic powerlessness. This chapter examines among other things, how on the one hand police legitimacy is ascribed in Nigeria, and on the other hand whether Nigerian citizens’ compliance with the law could be explained, or accounted for, by their perceptions of the legitimacy of the police, or be due to their feelings of dull compulsion. A cross-­ sectional survey data collected from southwest Nigeria is employed for the study, which found that police effectiveness, but not procedural justice, was related to the evaluations of police legitimacy in Nigeria. The study also revealed that citizens’ perceptions of the effectiveness of police and procedural justice were related to Nigerian citizens’ voluntary compliance with the law. Unexpectedly but notably, neither dull compulsion

1 Introduction 

7

nor perceptions of police legitimacy were related to self-reported compliance behaviour by Nigerians. Chapter 8 highlights the relevance of public satisfaction with the police within a context in which the maintenance of order is achieved mostly and overtly through coercion and a general disregard for the rule of law. As argued here, in contexts where the maintenance of order is achieved through non-normative methods, citizens may, certainly, have no faith or confidence in the morality of the law. Hence, they may likely not be satisfied with the police. As will be seen, the outcomes for this study reinforce this very assertion, and as such demonstrate that factors such as age, normative expectations, treatment outcome, and perceptions of procedural justice have innate potentialities to shape satisfaction with police. This means that the public is concerned not only with the primary functions of the police, but also with how they carry out duties associated with these functions, as well as how to treat or behave towards citizens during encounters. The results also have implications for the way citizens expect the police to conduct themselves in maintaining social order in the community. Chapter 9 offers an assessment of the extent to which public experiences and perceptions of police abuse and predatory policing tend to affect and inform the level of public trust and willingness to cooperate with police in a setting like Nigeria. The chapter establishes the position that perceptions of police abuse, experiences of police abuse, and perceptions of predatory policing have significant negative effects on trust in the police. It also advances the argument here that the level of trust in the police significantly mediates the effects of these variables on cooperation with the police, and that vicarious experience of predatory policing may likely have a significant negative effect on willingness to cooperate with the police. Chapter 10 concludes the book with implications and recommendations for research and policy in Nigeria and other developing contexts. It argues that this book provides evidence that perceptions of procedural justice is not the dominant factor people consider when forming their evaluations about the legitimacy of police in Nigeria. However, it corroborates that procedural justice operates much the same way in Nigeria and other developed contexts in fostering perceived legitimacy,

8 

O. M. Akinlabi

self-reported voluntary compliance with the law, and self-reported willingness to cooperate with police. In fact, perceptions of the legitimacy of the police were much less important to Nigerian’s decisions to comply with the law or cooperate with police than perceptions of procedural justice and police effectiveness.

References Akinlabi, O. M. (2017). Young People, Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy in Nigeria. Policing and Society, 27(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10439463.2015.1077836 Albrow, M. (1990). Max Weber’s Construction of Social Theory. Macmillan Education. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to Legitimacy in Criminal Justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119–170. Bradford, B., Huq, A., Jackson, J., & Roberts, B. (2014). What Price Fairness When Security is at Stake? Police Legitimacy in South Africa. Regulation & Governance, 8(4), 246–268. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., & Kirkman, B. L. (2001). Culture and Procedural Justice: The Influence of Power Distance on Reactions to Voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300–315. Carrabine, E. (2005). Prison Riots, Social Order and the Problem of Legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 896–913. Cherney, A., & Murphy, K. (2011, September 1). Understanding the Contingency of Procedural Justice Outcomes. Policing, 5(3), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/par030 Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T.  R. (2012). Why do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071. Kochel, T. R. (2012). Can Police Legitimacy Promote Collective Efficacy? Justice Quarterly, 29(3), 384–419. Kochel, T.  R., Parks, R., & Mastrofski, S.  D. (2013). Examining Police Effectiveness as a Precursor to Legitimacy and Cooperation with Police. Justice Quarterly, 30(5), 895–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825. 2011.633544

1 Introduction 

9

Lassman, P. (2000). The Rule of Man over Man: Politics, Power and Legitimation. In S.  Turner (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Weber (pp.  83–98). Cambridge University Press. Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2010). Policing Ethnic Minority Groups with Procedural Justice: An Empirical Study. Alfred Deakin Research Institute. Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2011, August 1). Fostering Cooperation with the Police: How Do Ethnic Minorities in Australia Respond to Procedural Justice-based Policing? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865811405260 Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R., & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing Regulatory Compliance: Is Procedural Justice Effective When People Question the Legitimacy of the Law? Regulation and Governance, 3, 1–26. Reisig, M.  D., Tankebe, J., & Mesko, G. (2012). Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young Slovene Adults. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 14(2), 147–164. Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2014). Ethnicity, Trust and Cooperation with Police: Testing the Dominance of the Process-based Model. European Journal of Criminology, 11(4), 500–524. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-­5893.3703002 Tankebe, J. (2008). Colonialism, Legitimation, and Policing in Ghana. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36(1), 67–84. Tankebe, J. (2009a). Public Cooperation with the Police in Ghana: Does Procedural Fairness Matter? Journal of Criminology, 47, 1265–1293. Tankebe, J. (2009b, June). Self-Help, Policing, and Procedural Justice: Ghanaian Vigilantism and the Rule of Law [Article]. Law & Society Review, 43(2), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­5893.2009.00372.x Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press. Tyler, T.  R. (2004). Enhancing Police Legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716203262627 Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press. Tyler, T.  R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Why do People Cooperate with the Police? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.

10 

O. M. Akinlabi

Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. Russell Sage Foundation. Tyler, T. R., & Murphy, K. (2011, May). Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy and Cooperation with the Police: A New Paradigm for Policing [Briefing Paper]. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security Briefing Paper. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and Acceptance of Police Authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253–282. Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press. Wolfe, S. E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R., & Rojek, J. (2015). Is the Effect of Procedural Justice on Police Legitimacy Invariant? Testing the Generality of Procedural Justice and Competing Antecedents of Legitimacy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-­015-­9263-­8

2 Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives and in Contemporary Society

Modern thinking about legitimacy has been greatly influenced by Max Weber. According to Weber, legitimate authority generates compliance by inspiring in people a belief that authority should be obeyed (Blau, 1963; Weber, 1958; Williams, 2003). That is, legitimacy fosters a feeling of an internal sense of moral obligation to obey authority. Weber’s (1947) analysis of legitimacy was systematically viewed in the direction of bottom-­up and top-down belief systems. Weber argues that legitimacy is always an attribute conferred on the power holder by the power subject (e.g., a citizen in the context of policing) and for a regime to attain or be perceived as legitimate, the power subject must believe that the authority has a valid right to dictate behaviour. Weber asserts further that a positive commitment on the part of the power subject to the dominant group they obey is a cardinal characteristic of legitimacy. Interestingly, it has been argued that people in authority often concoct ‘myths’ about their superiority or natural fitness to be in a position of power (Weber, 1958). These mythical justifications or claims are often necessary in order to claim moral justifications for their authority and sense of political propriety (see Parkin, 2002). Historically, these justifications are usually encountered in the form of legitimations put forward by © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 O. M. Akinlabi, Police-Citizen Relations in Nigeria, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92919-0_2

11

12 

O. M. Akinlabi

power holders to convince subordinates that command and obedience is the right thing to do (Matheson, 1987). This is to a certain extent associated with the kinds of claims put forward by those in command concerning the legitimacy of their own rule. According to Weber, these claims come in three broad forms: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. They are often referred to as the ‘three inner justifications’ or the ‘basic legitimations of the power holder’ (Gerth & Mills, 2007, p. 78). As succinctly summarized by Parkin (2002, p. 77), traditional claims for legitimacy rest on grounds such as: ‘obey me because this is what our people have always done’; charismatic commands such as ‘obey me because I can transform your life’; and lastly legal-­ rational orders like ‘obey me because I am your lawfully appointed superior’. From Weber’s perspective, only systems that approximate these three basic justifications would qualify as an example of legitimate authority. Other systems might strive to achieve this, according to Weber, but not all will succeed in equal proportion. Although these three classifications have been found to be relevant in power relations, it is the legal-rational perspective that better explains legitimacy in contemporary democratic societies. In legal-rational domination, compliance or obedience is not necessarily ascribed to an individual but to the position which power is granted. It is on this basis of legal-rational domination that a state’s institutions (e.g., police) are granted legitimacy by the public. However, to present a thorough perspective on legitimacy, especially within a modern African context, the other two classifications of legitimate authority (traditional and charismatic) are also relevant and should be discussed.

Legitimacy by Traditional Domination According to the traditional domination perspective of legitimacy, the relationship between command and obedience is legitimized on the basis of the sanctity of immemorial traditions (Parkin, 2002; Weber, 1947, 1958, 1964). According to Weber (1958), traditional authority is legitimated only by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to govern is passed down, most times through heredity. It does not change over time,

2  Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives… 

13

does not facilitate social change, and tends to perpetuate only the status quo (see Mawby, 2002; Williams, 2003). The power holder lays claim to power and demands obedience on the basis of ‘what has always been the trend’ from times past. This is what Parkin (2002, p. 77) refers to as ‘obey me because this is what our people have always done’. It is important to note that the concept of traditional domination does not necessarily emphasize that the method is not relevant in this contemporary world as argued by some authors (e.g., Dogan, 2003). Weber’s description of this concept only emphasizes that power holders will claim legitimacy through ‘traditional means’ as a result of existing customs in which subordinates have also obeyed. The emphasis is not on old methods; it rests solely on the appeal to existing custom and immemorial tradition. According to Weber, a system of domination can be referred to as ‘traditional’ if and when legitimacy is claimed or believed on the basis of the sanctity of order, and the attendant powers of control as they have been handed down from the past (Weber, 1964, p. 342). Thus (Weber, 1947, p. 296) notes that it is this characteristic belonging to patriarchal and patrimonial authority that makes the system inviolable. This also leads to a belief that any infraction of leadership authority is tantamount to taboo and would eventually result in magical or religious evils towards such perpetrators. While this type of traditional domination might have experienced a transformation in contemporary Western democracies (e.g., the British Monarchy), it is, however, very much in existence in some villages in Africa (see Baker, 2010; Isiramen, 2005). The basis of traditional principles of domination can also be explained through existing conventions. Simply put, command and obedience are considered to be legitimate, under this perspective, if they are in accordance with existing customs and of a generally acceptable standard (see Matheson, 1987; Weber, 1947, 1964). As noted by Bendix (1966), the legitimacy of traditional domination exists wherever or whenever the power holders claim obedience on the basis of established usage. Hence, a patriarchal authority or ruler can lose the feeling of obligation to be obeyed among his subjects, when he seeks to establish rights for himself that exceed the limits of existing custom. Thus, Martin (1977) has argued that Weber’s category of traditional domination consists of two main

14 

O. M. Akinlabi

elements: namely, the ‘sanctity’ or the sacredness of the past, and the ‘devotion’ to the established precedent that occurs equally in systems where norms are legal rather than customary. Although in contemporary Western democracy this basis of legitimacy may not be readily applicable, it has not been totally eroded. For example, in the Commonwealth nations, the Queen of England is the ceremonial head of government. Here, the Queen has no absolute power of command. It is expected, however, through tradition that people within the Commonwealth nations will accord the Queen the necessary royal respect. Queen Elizabeth II did not establish the British throne; it was passed down to her by heredity and custom. This means that by tradition, even without constitutional rights, she will expect people within the Commonwealth to respect her office as Queen. In contrast to Queen Elizabeth II of England, King Mswati III is an absolute monarch in the Kingdom of Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland) and the head of the Swazi royal family. Kingship was passed down to him by tradition through his father, King Sobhuza II. Today, King Mswati is the only and last absolute monarch in the sense that he has the power to choose the prime minister and other government officials without electoral power or democracy. The King rules by decree. Though he restored the parliament which had been disbanded by his late father, his kingship remains that of traditional domination. He was not elected, but power was bestowed on him by inheritance. The people accept Mswati’s decisions as the final authority in the kingdom, even in the midst of dissenting groups and international human rights organizations alleging corruption and human rights abuse. King Mswati’s domination is in accordance with Weber’s (1964, p. 328) assertion, ‘that traditional dominations claim their legitimacy on the ground that they are in accordance with custom. And power-subjects obey not just out of a feeling of personal loyalty to the powerholder, but in tandem to the established mores and norms of the society upon which the powerholder is claiming such authority.’ In developing democracies such as Nigeria, there are power holders who still claim legitimacy and demand obedience in their jurisdictions based on the fact that it is expected of the people to obey as a result of existing norms or traditions. On the individual attitudinal level, people

2  Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives… 

15

within such communities obey the power holders because that is what other people have done in the past. Even with the advent of democracy, these traditional rulers work hand in hand with democratically elected government in their jurisdictions (see Ajayi & Buhari, 2014; Onadeko, 2008; Parkin, 2002, p. 77; Tade & Olaitan, 2015). Oftentimes, government officials and electoral aspirants must seek approval or gain the support of these traditional rulers before they can implement policies. This principle is also applicable to policing in most developing societies, especially in Nigeria, where people’s attitude toward police is often influenced not only by what police do, but the existing norms passed down from one generation to another. Although this seems too simplistic, it is however, not impossible to find a situation in which the legitimacy claimed by the police is built on the grounds that the public should obey them because that has always been the situation. There are situations or contexts in which young people obey police not because police deserved to be obeyed, but because parents and guardians have forewarned their children and wards to acquiesce to police, so as to avoid police ‘trouble’. Here, legitimacy is not achieved because there is an alternative explanation; it is built simply to maintain existing norms of obedience. And police can also assume that deference in this situation translates to compliance or legitimacy.

Legitimacy by Charismatic Domination A charismatic domination perspective of legitimacy rests upon the personal magnetism or charm of an heroic figure who possesses unusual characteristics to keep followers motivated and awestruck by his or her abilities. It is someone who possesses the gift of grace beyond the normal perceptions of ‘mere’ men or women (see Blau, 1963; Parkin, 2002, p. 77; Weber, 1947, p. 358; Williams, 2003). According to Weber (1947) the term ‘charisma’ is applied to ‘a certain quality of an individual personality by the virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men. Based on this virtue, he is treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers and qualities.’ The usage of this term, ‘charisma’, makes it equivalent in meaning to the concept of

16 

O. M. Akinlabi

‘sacredness’ which is employed by other authors (e.g., Balandier, 1972; Berger, 1973, p. 40, 2011; Matheson, 1987; Sjoberg, 1960). The validity of a claim to legitimacy by such a power holder is built on the grounds that obedience is constructed when he or she has the charisma or magical power to transform the lives of power subjects (Parkin, 2002). The authority of charismatic leaders is dependent solely on their ability to convince their followers of their extraordinary powers. They will be expected to perform miracles, heroic deeds, to challenge the status quo, and continually prove their mission before their followers. Unlike the other bases of dominations, they cannot rest on the security of ‘established’ office or take refuge in the sanctity of custom or tradition. Such power holders must always be ready to demonstrate awe-inspiring acts or risk forfeiting the faith built in them by their followers (Weber, 1947, p. 359). Like modern-day sporting athletes, charismatic leaders’ performances are kept under constant and perpetual review by their followers and adulators. If the proof of charismatic qualification fails, power holders often think their magical or esoteric powers have deserted them. Beyond this, if they are still unsuccessful, above all if leadership fails to benefit their followers, there is a high possibility that their charismatic authority will fade away (Parkin, 2002, p. 84; Weber, 1947, p. 360). Weber (1947) argued that this peculiar kind of deference is paid to prophets, to people with a reputation for therapeutic or legal wisdom, leaders in the hunt, and heroes in war. Weber argued further that this ability is often thought to rest on magical or esoteric powers. The basis of such charisma lies in the conception that it is the responsibility of those who have been called to a charismatic mission to recognize their endowed quality and to act accordingly. As noted by Bendix (1966), the characteristic feature that distinguishes charismatic authority from other types of authority for Weber is the fact that the exercise of authority is bound up entirely with a concrete individual or person and his or her distinctive qualities. This, according to Weber, means people do not just obey by virtue of tradition or statute; they obey because of the existence of the individual’s charisma (Weber, 1947, p. 79). The emergence of charismatic authority is always a process that occurs when the ‘permanent’ institutionalized structures of domination are no longer adequate, and there is a dire need for a ‘saviour’ or revolutionary

2  Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives… 

17

character who can challenge the established order or status quo. For contemporary societies, it might be difficult to find someone who fits perfectly to this description. It is certain that sociological analyses, without abstinence from value judgements, will not treat these persons on the same level with what Weber describes in his treatise. However, the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mao Tse-tung, Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe, the Dalai Lama, and Fidel Castro, may be classified as modern-day charismatic leaders as a result of their ‘heroic’ and ‘revolutionary’ power in challenging the status quo. For example, a contemporary leader such as the late Hugo Chavez was a charismatic leader whose revolutionary rhetoric challenged the political norms and gave voice to the poor masses; and this made him the ‘messiah’ who led the people to the ‘promised land’. As a result of this, his political ambition was massively supported by the Venezuelan populace, and this led him to victory in the presidential race (see Grandin, 2013). In the true sense, domination that arises on the basis of charisma is altogether different because it lacks all forms of established organization, coercion, or victimization to anyone who disobeys their authority. A true charismatic leader relies on no hierarchical order of office, salaried employee, or procedural rules of any kind. Charismatic leaders reject with disdain methodological acquisitions of wealth or economic profitability. In place of routine economic activities the charismatic leader and his followers rely on gifts, voluntary donations, or booty for their sustenance (Parkin, 2002). These conditions, as outlined by Weber, do not fit into the profile of the likes of Chavez, Castro, or any known leader in today’s world. But without doubt, the people of Venezuela, Cuba, China, Tibet, and so on treat these men as true political heroes and as charismatic saviours of the masses. Thus, these recognitions lend credence to the argument by Weber (1947, p. 359) that, ‘it is with such recognition on the part of the masses which is crucial for the validity of leaders’ charisma’. In the context of policing, charismatic domination may not be readily applicable except in periods of unrest, violence, and crime when an individual police officer displays unusual skills and effectiveness in quelling public disturbances. Even in such periods of instability, ascribing legitimacy to an individual over and above an organization may not be too

18 

O. M. Akinlabi

endearing as the general public will not be relating to such a single charismatic individual at all times. The demands for effective policing without abuse of power and coercion may be very appealing, but demanding obedience based on charisma may not be very achievable for a policing organization. The fact that charismatic domination eschews coercion and requires a ‘saviour-like’ individual to save the day means that it cannot be the basis of a stable system of policing. The organization cannot wait upon the motivation of an individual and his wondrous deeds. A serious police organization is not designed to rely on citizens’ faith in a great man or individuals to win obedience to its activities. Police organizations are not about an individual but reflect a continuous social control institution that must improve at all times to better serve the public. From the foregoing arguments, it can be concluded therefore, that the quality of charisma is not closely related or applicable in the context of modern policing.

Legitimacy by Legal-rational Domination The third typology of legitimacy is what Weber referred to as legal-­ rational authority. According to Weber, this form of authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of rationally established law (Parkin, 2002; Weber, 1947). Here, obedience is claimed by the power holder on the basis of the law. As rightly said by Parkin (2002), the power holders under a legal-rational basis always assert their power because they are legally appointed as superiors within the social context. In other words, the public has a responsibility to obey police because they have been appointed as officers of the law. Here, the power subjects do not give obedience to a specific individual leader—whether traditional or charismatic—but to a set of uniform principles and established rules. Obedience is given in a totally impersonal manner to a system of law and not of men. Under this basis, it is ideally believed that any given legal norm must be established either by agreement or by imposition, on the grounds of expediency or rational values or both. Here, a claim to obedience is based at least on the part of the members of the dominant group. Societies in which legal-rational domination is the norm might be less vulnerable to

2  Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives… 

19

the challenges faced by charismatic or traditional domination. But they are by no means immune from them. The importance of this legal rational notion of legitimacy is in the fact that rules are both general and predictable. Rules help to create predictability in social life; which is itself a moral good, even if they often entrench injustices in other respects (Gilley, 2006). Rules are seen as legal and justifiable when they have been enacted in accordance with a rationally formulated and interpreted constitution. In other words, the claim to legal domination here should be based on the system of political rule, which obtains its legitimacy from the existence of a rationally made and generally acceptable legal rule. It must be shown that the legal rules are acceptable, and that they vividly put into consideration even the concerns of minority groups in the population. This system designates the powers of command exercisable in accordance with the rules (Cotterrell, 1997; Matheson, 1987; Weber, 1964). From the laws which govern the authority relationship, power holders derive their right of command and subordinates derive their corresponding duty to obey. This rule also specifies the procedures and the agencies of government by which law may be altered, enforced, and nullified. This type of authority is recognized as long as it is exercised in accordance with the requirements of these rules. According to Weber, this form of legitimacy is the essential basis of all stable authority institutions in modern society (Weber, 1964). Unlike premodern societies, where this principle of legitimacy was most often evident through customary or conventional rules (Gilley, 2006), Weber has argued that modern societies and state agencies will be the ‘legal types’ where ‘commands will be given in the name of an impersonal norm rather than in the name of a personal authority. In turn, the giving of such a command will constitute obedience to a norm rather than an arbitrary decision, a favour, a privilege, or an expression of devotion to the person of the authority holder’ (see Weber, 1968, pp. 217–219). This, according to Smith (1991), is legality in its positivist form which requires the exclusion of arbitrary personal orders. Smith believes that these laws have come to replace the potentially unstable appeal to transcendent norms and are in principle, what ‘free men’ would establish by their own rationality.

20 

O. M. Akinlabi

A typical example of this type of legitimate domination is bureaucracy. In a modern state Weber asserts that the actual ruler is unavoidably the bureaucratic type (Weber, 1947, pp. 333–341). The bureaucrats are simply the officials or ‘foot soldiers’ in a legal-rational domination. They are themselves servants to higher authority in a society governed by this basis of legitimacy. They are typically responding to higher authority such as elected government, ministers, and in the worst case, dictators. A very distinguishing feature of bureaucracy lies in the fact that while all other domination resides in persons—patriarch, lord, revolutionary leaders, messiah, etc.—its power lies in carrying out orders according to rules and systems of law. The hallmark of such rules is expected in its impartiality. For the purpose of this book, police officers are just like the bureaucrats in legal-rational domination. They are expected to act without prejudice or passion, applying the same rule to all irrespective of social status or differences. The problem lies in the fact that the police, as much as all bureaucrats, do not always behave or follow instructions to meet public expectations. They have an understandable human tendency to accrue power for themselves and to promote their private selfish interests. Although this may be less prevalent in developed Western societies where rule of law is relatively stable, it is unavoidably present in developing societies where forces of arbitrariness, convention, and traditionalism still persist. A typical example of this can be seen through the imposition of certain laws by politicians and business organizations without proper consultation with the public. The breach of established rules by a group constitutes one of the most frequent sources of grievance on the part of the power subjects. Although this does not necessarily undermine the legitimacy of the power structure as a whole (Moore, 1978), it is often countered by mass protest, industrial strike actions, public demonstrations, and petitions. Generally speaking, the fact that legality provides both ‘the source and protection’ of power holders’ legitimacy makes it more appealing, not only for the power holders, but also for the power subjects. This is because the more the dominant group rely, prefer, and appeal to the law as the self-sufficient justification of their power, the more they have to obey the law so as to sustain their legitimacy. The idea that those who make the law are themselves above the law does not hold traction under the

2  Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives… 

21

legal-rational principle of legitimacy. The ‘rule of law’ is applicable to the powerful and their agents. Whatever influence they may exercise over the formulation of the law, they are themselves subject to it. They must also conform to the recognized and generally acceptable procedures to change the law (see Musonda, 2006; Thompson, 1975; Weber, 1947). From the foregoing statement, one will notice that ‘legality’ is indeed the modern version of the legitimacy of state power as advocated by Max Weber. There is no arguing the fact that legality as an instrument of normalization in modern society has presented benefit and value to both power holders and power subjects. Through the instrument and interpretation of law, power subjects are not just being dominated without an avenue to seek redress. Despite the correctness and formal procedures which seem to set the law beyond question, there are situations and circumstances that often expose the flaws of the law or question its legitimacy. This invariably means that though the law does indeed have the threat of penalties behind it, especially for those who do not comply with its requirements, the threat of force alone cannot be sufficient to oblige citizens’ willingness to obey the law at all times. To some extent, as argued by Musonda (2006) and Tyler (2006), there must be voluntary compliance of citizens to the law because they recognize its authority and accept that they ought to obey willingly. Recent discussions on policing advocate that a perception of police legitimacy and willingness to obey its directives or comply with the law is good for the police; most especially when it is obtained via public perceptions of procedural justice (Murphy, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2009; Tyler, 1990). Tom Tyler’s seminal research in Chicago offers robust empirical evidence supporting the relevance of procedural justice in influencing perceived police legitimacy and compliance with the law in a Western context (see Tyler, 1990). Tyler argues that to perceive police as legitimate is to feel personally obligated to obey officers and to believe that police use fair procedures when dealing with the public. Importantly, voluntary compliance and cooperation with the police, obtained through public perceptions of police legitimacy and the use of fair procedures, is more cost effective, durable, and ethically more desirable than coercion (Jackson et al., 2010; Tyler, 2006). The idea here is

22 

O. M. Akinlabi

that during encounters with the public, the police legitimize their decisions by making them through fair procedures. The perception of fairness of the procedures used by the police then fosters in the people a willingness to voluntarily accept police decisions (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990) and to abide by those decisions across time, irrespective of whether they are being monitored or not (Jackson et al., 2010). With procedural justice being argued to be important to the legitimacy of authorities in the West, the next chapters of this book will present direct applications of and/or empirical studies based procedural justice and police legitimacy in Nigeria.

References Ajayi, A. T., & Buhari, L. O. (2014). Methods of Conflict Resolution in African Traditional Society. African Research Review, 8(2), 138–157. Baker, B. (2010). Security in Post-Conflict Africa: The Role of Nonstate Policing. CRC Press. Balandier, G. (1972). Political Anthropology. Pantheon Books. Bendix, R. (1966). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Methuen. Berger, P. L. (1973). The Social Reality of Religion. Penguin. Berger, P.  L. (2011). The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Open Road Integrated Media. Blau, P.  M. (1963). Critical Remarks on Weber’s Theory of Authority. The American Political Science Review, 57(2), 305–316. Cotterrell, R. (1997). Legality and Legitimacy: The Sociology of Max Weber. Oxford Scholarship Online, Mar-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780198264903.003.0007 Dogan, M. (2003). Conceptions of Legitimacy. In M.  Hawkesworth & M.  Kogan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Government and Politics (Vol. 2, pp. 116–219). Routledge. Gerth, H.  H., & Mills, C.  W. (2007). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Routledge. Gilley, B. (2006). The Meaning and Measure of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 Countries. European Journal of Political Research, 45(3), 499–525. Grandin, G. (2013, March 5). On the Legacy of Hugo Chávez. The Nation. http:// www.thenation.com/article/173212/legacy-­hugo-­chavez#axzz2Z5agTpJL

2  Understanding Legitimacy in Weber’s Perspectives… 

23

Isiramen, C. O. (2005). The African Traditional Religion’s Business Ethics: A Paradigm for Spirituality in the Global Ethical Standard. In N. Capaldi (Ed.), Business and Religion: A Clash of Civilizations? (pp.  390–397). M & M Scrivener Press. Jackson, J., Tyler, T.  R., Bradford, B., Taylor, D., & Shiner, M. (2010). Legitimacy and Procedural Justice in Prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4–10. Martin, R. (1977). The Sociology of Power. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Matheson, C. (1987). Weber and the Classification of Forms of Legitimacy. British Journal of Sociology, 38, 199–215. Mawby, R.  C. (2002). Policing Images: Policing, Communication and Legitimacy. Willan. Moore, B. (1978). Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt. M.E. Sharpe. Murphy, K. (2009). Public Satisfaction with Police: The Importance of Procedural Justice and Police Performance in Police-Citizen Encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 159–178. https:// doi.org/10.1375/acri.42.2.159 Musonda, A. M. (2006). Political Legitimacy: The Quest for the Moral Authority of the State, A Philosophical Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Munich. Munich, Germany. edoc.ub.uni-­muenchen.de/5813/1/Musonda_ Anthony.pdf Onadeko, T. (2008). Yoruba Traditional Adjudicatory Systems. African Study Monographs, 29(1), 15–28. Parkin, F. (2002). Max Weber (Rev. ed.). Routledge. Sjoberg, G. (1960). The Pre-Industrial City: Past and Present. Free Press. Smith, S. B. (1991). Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism: Rights in Context (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-­5893.3703002 Tade, O., & Olaitan, F. (2015). Traditional Structures of Crime Control in Lagos, Nigeria. African Security Review, 24(2), 138–152. Tankebe, J. (2009). Public Cooperation with the Police in Ghana: Does Procedural Fairness Matter? Journal of Criminology, 47, 1265–1293. Thompson, E.  P. (1975). Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act. Allen Lane. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press.

24 

O. M. Akinlabi

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Economic and Social Organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). The Free Press. Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). The Free Press. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Bedminster Press. Williams, D. (2003, December 2). Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational, and Charismatic Authority.

3 Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness to Cooperate with the Police

Theorizing on legitimacy in contemporary times has made undeniable penetration into, and raised fundamental questions about, the subject matter and substance of legitimacy in society, and indeed on public perceptions of the legitimacy of public institutions such as the police. It has produced some feats in the revelation of likely provenance and foundations on which legitimacy is built. It also unsettles the role of perception in determining legitimacy and indeed seeks to determine whether procedures deployed by legal authorities during encounters with the public are fair and just, and whether police are really effective in controlling crime and disorders vis-à-vis procedural justice versus police effectiveness (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Tyler and his colleagues particularly argued that people basically examine whether or not legal authorities like police, judges, and prison officers employ fair procedures during encounters with them. Even when police effectiveness is considered important, Tyler suggests procedural justice is more important (Tyler, 1990). Perceptions or judgements about the fairness of procedures have a strong influence on the manner in which the public ascribe legitimacy to legal authorities, and whether or not legitimacy, in turn, will have any influence on people’s voluntary compliance © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 O. M. Akinlabi, Police-Citizen Relations in Nigeria, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92919-0_3

25

26 

O. M. Akinlabi

with the law and their expressed willingness to cooperate with the directives of legal authorities (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Comparable studies, mostly those conducted in some developed Western societies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, consistently support the claim that, when making judgements about the police, procedural justice is more important than police effectiveness (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Murphy et al., 2014, 2015; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006; Tyler & Trinker, 2017). Beyond the scope and context of police studies, evidence also shows that procedural justice can also encourage compliance among offenders (Murphy et  al., 2015), reduce misconduct among prison inmates (Reisig & Mesko, 2009) and aids young people’s capacity to support police (Murphy, 2015; Reisig et  al., 2012). These studies back up the general arguments in Tyler’s Procedural Justice Model that, when legal authorities apply procedural justice with those whom they regulate, the people are likely to ascribe legitimacy to them and will be more willing to comply and cooperate with their directives. However, much yet remains to be explored, including whether or not the procedural justice effect will possibly gain traction in African societies, especially in a setting like Nigeria where relationships between the police and the public are deemed very delicate, and occasionally volatile. This chapter illuminates and expounds a number of significant contributions to the legitimacy and procedural justice literature. It carefully explores whether perceptions of procedural justice are essentially more influential than perceptions of police effectiveness in determining Nigerian citizens’ legitimacy perceptions and expressed willingness to cooperate with police. It represents a purposive study which widens existing scholarship on police legitimacy by further examining other variables, including predatory policing, police corruption, and police colonial origin, which might likely predict public perceptions of police legitimacy and self-reported willingness to cooperate with police in Nigeria.

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

27

L egitimacy, Normative Issues, and Cooperation with Police Perhaps with the exception of Murphy and Cherney (2011) and Sargeant et al. (2014), quite a few studies from some developed Western societies have increasingly confirmed that procedural justice policing is more vital to people than judgements about police effectiveness for predicting public perceptions of police legitimacy and willingness to cooperate with police (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Hough et al., 2010; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). But in the present time, empirical investigations on procedural justice and police legitimacy in African societies, especially Nigeria, remain scarce. Giving consideration to the evidently widespread police corruption and distrust of police, there is a premise to assume that procedural justice will work differently in such contexts. Arguably, the few existing studies in developing countries that have examined the impact of procedural justice, set against police effectiveness on perceptions of police legitimacy, reflect some inconsistency in their results. Indeed, a few studies have reported that procedural justice promotes police legitimacy more than police effectiveness (e.g., Akinlabi, 2017b; Bradford et al., 2014; Kochel et al., 2013; Murphy & Cherney, 2011; Tankebe, 2009b), while others do not (e.g., Brockner et al., 2001; Tankebe, 2009a). Tankebe (2009a), for instance, has demonstrated that in the Ghanaian context, contributory factors are far more important in predicting public perceptions of police legitimacy than perceived procedural justice. Tankebe foregrounded his study on general survey data from 405 households located in Accra, Ghana. The results indicated an absence of empirical validity of Tyler’s Procedural Justice Model, but instead showed that perceptions of police legitimacy and public cooperation with the police in Ghana were most strongly predicted by contributory factors such as perceptions of police effectiveness in combating crime. In a similar vein Bradford et al. (2014) in their study on South Africa considered whether there is a significant link between perceptions of procedural fairness and perceived police legitimacy in the challenging context of contemporary South Africa. Bradford and his colleagues found that judgements based on procedural fairness assumed an important role,

28 

O. M. Akinlabi

but also that South Africans placed greater emphasis on perceptions of police effectiveness, as well as on public concerns about crime, when judging South African police as legitimate. Most recently Akinlabi (2017b) evaluates the strength of procedural justice effect in comparison with other police behaviours and inherent characteristics of a young demographic in Nigeria. The results authenticate the basic hypothesis procedural justice in the developed West, confirming that procedural justice is a more significant predictor of police legitimacy than police effectiveness. Even more in the developed West, the tendency to generalize ideas on the procedural justice effect has been interrogated in certain contexts. Murphy and Cherney (2011), in a survey of 1204 Australian citizens, tested whether procedurally fair policing would improve perceptions of police legitimacy and foster cooperation among people living in Australia. Their findings showed that perceived procedural justice predicted perceptions of police legitimacy more than instrumental factors for both minority and majority group members. Still, for ethnic minorities living in Australia, perceived procedural justice was less effective for nurturing self-reported willingness to cooperate with police. In the same way, Sargeant et al. (2014) studied the relationship that exists between perceived procedural fairness, perceptions of police performance, trust in the police, and the self-reported willingness to cooperate with the police among the general population in Australia and for two Australian ethnic minority groups; namely people with Vietnamese and Indian ancestry. They found that perceptions of procedural justice were less important for encouraging expression of trust and self-reported willingness to cooperate with police among ethnic minority groups when compared to the general population in Australia. Findings of this nature suggest that procedural justice can have variant levels of success in influencing the attitudes and behaviours of different people in the population. As noted already, these findings as highlighted above typically set boundaries to the generalizability of the Procedural Justice Model across other socio-cultural contexts, such as Nigeria. Short of essentially considering the differences that may occur in other developing contexts, procedural justice may not provide a completely adequate explanation for why citizens perceive police as legitimate or why they choose to voluntarily

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

29

comply with the law and cooperate with police. Therefore, it is both significant and deliberate to discourse and account for whether perceived procedural justice dominates public concerns about perceptions of police legitimacy in countries such as Nigeria where police corruption has become widespread. Additionally, certain studies have further shown that in contexts where police legitimacy is considered to be low or near non-existent, people are potentially inclined towards the disobedience of the law (see Agbiboa, 2015; Akinlabi, 2017a; Alemika, 2013). In such cases, there are high likelihoods that police officers cannot count on citizens’ normative commitment to obey the law (Bradford et al., 2014). Also, in settings where the police do not rely on the normative commitment of citizens, policing activities may become arbitrary, coercive, and largely repressive (Akinlabi, 2017a). It has been established that when people experience coercion, abuse, corruption, and repressive policing, procedural justice may become inconsequential (Akinlabi, 2017a; Bradford et  al., 2014; Gerber & Mendelson, 2008; Jackson et al., 2014). Consequently, this may reduce and possibly weaken legitimacy and peoples’ expressed willingness to cooperate with the police (Anderson & Tverdova, 2003; Tankebe, 2010). Taking into account the historical antecedents of modern policing in Africa and the records of colonial repressions and the use of police to brutally suppress the colonial African states (see Alemika, 1993; Tamuno, 1970; Tankebe, 2008), it is possible to probe whether these ‘misconducts’ influenced modern perceptions of the police or whether legitimacy deficits exist in postcolonial Africa. Thus, this chapter is situated to increase the general understanding of police legitimacy in Africa, giving specific attention to historical accounts and the popular discontents of colonization and colonial policing in Nigeria. By engaging extant historical accounts, it is possible to find reliable answers to the lingering question about the way and manner by which Nigerians understand and describe legitimacy and whether they ascribe legitimacy to the police.

30 

O. M. Akinlabi

 frica in Context: Tradition, Colonialism, A and Popular Discontent Long before the advent of colonisation in Africa, native jurisprudence and traditional systems of maintaining law and order existed on the continent (Baker, 2010; Dike, 1956; Tamuno, 1970). Across their diverse cultural locales, African peoples had always organized social control methods of policing their societies by employing their local customs, beliefs in deities, religious practices, rituals, and traditional values (Davidson et al., 1966; Onyeozili, 1998, 2005; Tamuno, 1970). The traditional systems were potent enough to discourage crime, check extreme behaviours, and to help maintain compliance with laws, mores, and traditions in the community (Davidson et al., 1966; Nzimiro, 1972; Oli, 1985; Tamuno, 1970). In precolonial times, folk religious practices governed by belief in deities had a strong influence on how Africans interpreted laws and adjudicated disputes (Oli, 1985). Precolonial Africans had unwavering beliefs in the omniscience of deities and spirits. This conviction was so internalized that people would voluntarily own up to their ‘secret offences’ in order to avoid the wrath of the spirits or divinities. Mostly, offenders were punished only after a hearing at the elders’ councils. In some instances, conditional on the nature and severity of the misconduct committed, those who violated the law could be made to undergo appropriate rituals to appease a particular deity or spirit, and some offenders could be banished from their communities (see Otu, 1999). In the same manner, the belief in immediate judgement was intensely entrenched in the people’s consciousness and was enculturated and passed on from one generation to another. The idea of the god Amadioha among the Igbo people is similar to Ṣàngó among the Yoruba people. This god was believed to strike offenders and wrongdoers with a ‘thunderbolt’, thereby meting out instant judgement (see Dierk, 2011; Johnson, 1921, pp. 149–152; Otu, 1999). He is generally referred to as the god of justice. Without doubt, traditions and cultural practices as they determined the ways of life and adjudication of laws, were the very fabric of existence to the Africans before the emergence of colonialism.

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

31

Also, in Africa of the precolonial era, military and para-military institutions functioned more to perpetuate the community’s territorial expansionist interests and political dominations than for social interests. Essentially, native traditions played important roles in controlling the excesses of neighbouring ‘city-states’ or communities in terms of power struggles, internecine and inter-ethnic wars, and conflicts, thereby safeguarding territorial protection and diplomatic relations (Onyeozili, 1998, p. 101). Among the many palace officials in the centralized emirates of the North and the Yoruba and Edo kingdoms of West Nigeria were those who performed the role of police (Vaaseh & Ehinmore, 2011). In the Northern Emirates, they were known as dogarai (Nadama, 1977, pp. 337, 352; Smith, 1960, p. 36). Smith also reports that the dogarai had the duty to capture and discipline offenders, avert and detect crime, and decide punishment for criminals (Fika, 1978, pp.  40–41; Smith, 1960, p.  338; Ubah, 1973, pp. 47–48). The Yoruba traditional leaders had a recognized ‘traditional police’ commonly referred to as ilari (in Oyo), emese (in Ife, Ijesa and Ekiti kingdoms) and agunren in Ijebu-Ode (see Ahire, 1991, p.  45; Alemika, 2010; Falola & Adebayo, 1985; Rotimi, 2001, p. 2; Vaaseh & Ehinmore, 2011). Although not much is known about the precolonial policing system among the Igbo in Eastern Nigeria, available evidence suggests that a body of men known as umuokorobia who were drawn mainly from the youth groups performed policing functions in many communities of Eastern Nigeria (Isichei, 1978; Okafor, 2007, pp. 8–9). It must be stressed that much of these strong beliefs in traditional adjudication processes continue to exist in many communities in contemporary Nigeria and other African countries (Tade & Olaitan, 2015). In many rural and traditional Nigerian settings, notwithstanding regionality or ethnicity, traditional rulers continue to have strong control over the affairs of local police who carry out traditional duties such as arrest and special duties bordering matters of cultures, norms and mores of the people. Likewise, there are traditional courts in which traditional rulers have long-existing ‘elders’ councils’ where matters or cases in their communities are adjudicated with little or no interfering from the official government of the state. Tradition and cultural practices therefore permeate every part of the society, thereby making it problematic to separate the

32 

O. M. Akinlabi

secular from the sacred. This highlights the extent to which religion has become an inextricable aspect of the customary laws or jurisprudential practices. Following the Berlin conference of 1884–1885, the European scramble for Africa saw countries such as Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Portugal and Italy staking claims to virtually all the territories in Africa (Jones, 2015; Meredith, 2011). Thus, with the advent of colonial imperialism and administration, the determination to keep the conquered colonies under control also became paramount. Subsequently, policing was introduced by the various European powers. As it turned out, the colonial police structure did not serve, but instead subjugated the cultural ideals of the people for the political and economic advantage of the colonialists (Ahire, 1991; Tankebe, 2008). As described by Tamuno (1970), the major purpose of policing in Africa was to enforce and perpetuate colonial laws and to extract resources at gunpoint. Policing was designed to protect the colonialist interests and not necessarily to serve the African people. All through this period, the policing of African colonies by European colonizers was very different to the systems of policing in Europe. The nine Peelian Principles for policing in England and Wales, for example, were never introduced in the British Protectorates in Africa (Ahire, 1991; Akinlabi, 2017a; Tamuno, 1970; Tankebe, 2008). However, rather than promoting and encouraging the Peelian Principles of accountability, impartiality, and consent, colonial policing in Africa was carried out through means such as armed raids, arrests, and detention of any opposition to the British Crown (Ahire, 1991; Tankebe, 2008). Consequently, the relationship between the police and the public was not great (McCracken, 1986; Onoge, 1993; Tamuno, 1970; Tankebe, 2008). Policing was carried out with little or no regard for procedural fairness (Deflem, 1994; McCracken, 1986; Onoge, 1993). This way, it became entrenched in the people’s mindset that the police must always be avoided at all costs. The widespread perception about policing is adversely negative. As already argued in some prior studies, historical experiences of police abuse have potential lingering effects on perceptions of modern policing, especially when the attending issues have endured unabated (see Johnson

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

33

et al., 2014). Although, as earlier stated, the pertinence of these police-­ related issues is not isolated to any one country on the African continent. Ensuing from the British conquest, colonial rule was consolidated through a system that undermined the existing traditional informal method of maintaining law and order. The colonial administration brought new laws, which replaced, or seriously threatened the efficacy of native laws and customs, traditional religions, and other sanctions, as well as indigenous tribunals and justice (Carter, 1981; Onoge, 1993; Onyeozili, 2005; Tamuno, 1970). Where the Africans were slow to accept new ways, the colonial ‘master’ made it a duty to militarily punish the community as an example for other communities who might be contemplating resistance (Onyeozili, 2005). Given its peculiar colonial history of politics and policing, the Nigeria police retains a huge baggage of history that seems to set back its efficiency rate in contemporary times. There is, for instance, a wanton disparity between how police treat the general public and how they respond to the influential members of the community in particular and in the wider society (Agbiboa, 2015; Akinlabi, 2017a; Alemika, 2013). Occasionally, police officers have fallen foul of extrajudicial killings, have beaten crime suspects, and have been seen to arbitrarily arrest and detain persons who, many times, have not been found guilty of any offence (Alemika, 2013; Human Rights Watch, 2010). These frequent and repeated crises between the police and the citizens have produced significant legitimacy deficits and integrity baggage for the Nigerian police. Researches have clearly and increasingly shown that encounters that individuals have with the police are sensitive and socializing moments which can either build or undermine police legitimacy (Crawford & Hucklesby, 2012; Skogan, 2005). Every occasioned contact with the police provides an opportunity for the public to learn about the police and how to relate with the police in future situations (Akinlabi, 2017a). Consequently, how Nigerian police exercise their authority and how they treat citizens have a substantial level of influence on Nigerian citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy and their willingness to cooperate with police (Akinlabi, 2017a, 2017b). Similarly, deference and public support for the police are among the few factors that help to bolster the effective and equitable day-to-day

34 

O. M. Akinlabi

functioning of the police in many significant ways (Shearing & Stenning, 2015). To a significant extent, the responsibility of summoning officers, reporting crime, and providing information that ise useful in helping the police identify criminals are mostly carried out by citizens (Skogan, 2004). Crime control and social order maintenance, therefore, become easy for the police when citizens are willing to voluntarily make available information or report crimes to the police (Johnson et al., 2014; Tyler & Darley, 2000). Certainly, these friendly interactions between the police and the public are considerably reported in some developed Western societies where there are sufficient order maintenance resources (see Bradford et  al., 2014; Skogan, 2005; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). The significant difference that exists between the policing experience in Nigeria and developed Western societies, however, is that, in the Nigerian context, the police constantly abuse their powers and, in that way, undermine any affective links with the public (Akinlabi, 2013; Alemika & Chukwuma, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). These issues then, raise fundamental questions on whether Nigerians will cooperate with the police in such a context where the perceived legitimacy of the police is extremely low.

Method Data and Participants The data for the study captured in this chapter was collected through a cross-sectional survey of 600 participants from the six states in southwest geopolitical zone of Nigeria. Capitals of each of the six states were used in drawing the sample for the study. The selections were based on the fact that police activities and the police daily encounters with the Nigerian public are more common in capital cities than in rural communities. With the difficulty and inability to obtain access the 2006 Census Enumeration Area Data from the National Population Commission, a ‘captive audience’ approach was alternately used in each of the state capitals through churches, mosques, and tertiary institutions to obtain a

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

35

sample of research participants. In each state capital, major religious institutions, specifically mosques and churches, and tertiary institutions (specifically universities and polytechnics) were itemized to create a sampling list. From the list, a simple random sampling method was used to select from these institutions. In total, two higher institutions, two churches, and two mosques were selected at random from the list. In each of the institutions, the researcher sought permission from either the senior pastor, chief Imam, or the lecturers in charge of the settings. Access was granted to each of the institutions selected. Following this, the researcher personally addressed the ‘captive audience’ in each of the institutions by explaining the purpose of the research and what was required from each participant. Consent forms were handed out to the willing participants and, upon reading the consent form, those who were willing to participate were given the survey instrument. A total of 702 people were addressed and invited to participate in the survey, but 638 indicated a willingness to participate. The survey instruments were given to the willing participants with a two-week deadline to be returned to some padlocked boxes (marked with ‘research project’) in designated locations. After two weeks of administering the questionnaires, 611 completed copies of the questionnaires were returned to the various locations. However, during the data coding process, only 600 of the returned survey instruments were retained for this research project. It is important to remark that the research was conducted with ethical approval from Griffith University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. The demographic characteristic of the sample is presented in Table 3.1. It is important to note that the sample tends towards a highly educated sample population. This might characterize a bias in the analysis. Predictably, this survey sample is an approximation of the literacy level in Southwest Nigeria. In a 2012 UNESCO Action Plan on Literacy, literacy rates in the six states of the Southwest political zone ranged between 63 to 92 per cent of the population. Needless to say, this bias needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings. This emphasis is against the backdrop of prior research which showed that, in Western countries, highly educated persons tend to be more trusting of the police (Skogan, 2006).

36 

O. M. Akinlabi

Table 3.1  Demographic structure of the sample Demographics

Range Per cent

Age (Mean = 32.70, SD = 7.52)

20–62

Gender   Male   Female Marital status   Single   Married   Divorced/separated

49.0 51.0

Religion    No Religious Affiliation   Muslim   Catholic   Protestant/Pentecostal   Anglican   Traditional Practice   Others

1.8 19.3 7.3 47.2 15.3 0.3 8.2

Ethnicity   Yoruba   Hausa   Igbo

72.0 10.5 16.8

45.2 52.7 1.8

Range Per cent Education   No schooling   Primary   Secondary   University   Postgraduate Number of children

3.8 1.2 5.5 64.3 24.8

Employment status   Unemployed   Full housewife   Self employed    Employed full time    Employed part time   Retired Monthly income (Naira)   0–5000   6000–10,000   11,000–20,000   21,000–30,000   41,000–50,000   50,000–100,000   100,000–200,000   300,000–400,000   Above 500,000

24.5 1.7 23.8 35.5 13.5 0.5

0–7

13.8 9.5 14.7 13.2 15.7 12.8 2.3 1.3 0.8

Measures The study as detailed in the present chapter employs a range of measures to address the subject of citizen cooperation with police. Table 3.2 presents the full wordings of the instruments, showing the mean values, and standard deviations are presented. The specific variables and their relevance to the study are described below.

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

37

Table 3.2  Means and standard deviation of each variable items Variable items

CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5

PJ1 PJ2 PJ3 PJ4 PJ5 PJ6 PJ7 PJ8

PEF1 PEF2 PEF3 PEF4 PEF5 PEF6

Cooperation with Police (Mean = 3.61; SD = 1.06) (I am willing…) To help police find someone suspected of committing a crime To report dangerous or suspicious activities to police To assist police, if asked To call police to report a crime Police Legitimacy (Mean = 2.14; SD = 0.91) Even if police are doing the wrong thing, I still feel a moral obligation to obey police One should always obey police even if it goes against what you think is right My own feelings about what is right and wrong usually agree with police rules and policies The police share the same values of ordinary citizens like me People should accept the decisions of police even if they think they are wrong Procedural Justice (Mean = 2.50; SD = 0.92) If you are treated unfairly by the police, it is easy to get your complaint heard Overall, I am satisfied with how police treat people and handle problems in my community Police treat all people fairly and equally Police give people the opportunity to express their views before decisions are made Police treat people with dignity and respect Police listen to people before making decisions Police are always polite when dealing with people Police make decisions based on facts, not their personal biases or opinions Police Effectiveness (Mean = 2.55; SD = 1.10) The police respond promptly to calls about crime The police are always ready to provide satisfactory assistance to victims of crime The police are always able to provide the assistance the public need from them The police are doing well at controlling violent crime Overall, the police are doing a good job in my neighbourhood When the police stop people, they usually handle the situation well

Mean SD

3.47

1.33

3.75 3.56 3.66

1.17 1.22 1.26

2.27

1.16

2.28

1.16

2.06

1.11

1.96 2.13

1.12 1.12

2.59

1.31

2.37

1.22

2.20 2.68

1.20 1.30

2.50 2.70 2.39 2.56

1.29 1.29 1.16 1.26

2.64 2.50

1.39 1.26

2.50

1.32

2.60 2.55

1.32 1.29

2.50

1.26

(continued)

38 

O. M. Akinlabi

Table 3.2 (continued) Variable items

PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6 PP7

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6

CO1 CO2 CO3 CO4 CO5 CO6

Predatory Policing (Mean = 3.68; SD = 0.94) (The police are known for…) Planting evidence or setting up people for offences they did not commit Shooting innocent citizens Killing offenders without normal judicial process Subjecting anyone who disobeys their directives to harsh treatment Prowling around in the shadows/hidden places so as to arrest people Stopping people randomly for questioning Mounting checkpoints in order to extort money from citizens Police Corruption (Mean = 3.98; SD = 0.84) (Nigeria Police…) Take bribes Is known to deliberately provide false evidence to the courts Use more force than is legally allowed when making arrests Are often bribed to overlook unlawful behaviour Often refuse to investigate, arrest, or prosecute people because they are related to a police officer Often refuse to investigate, arrest, or prosecute people because they know influential citizen(s) Police Colonial Origin (Mean = 3.14; SD = 1.07) The best form of policing in Nigeria is the traditional system such as OPC, Arewa, Egbesu, Agaba Boys, etc. Nigeria police is a conception of the British colonialist Nigeria police should have been scrapped after independence in favour of the traditional police I see Nigeria police as alien to the Nigerian value system I would rather trust the traditional police than the Nigeria police I would rather obey the traditional police than the Nigeria police

Mean SD

3.71

1.22

3.75 3.63 3.74

1.14 1.16 1.18

3.63

1.20

3.51 3.84

1.23 1.19

4.21 3.88 4.00 4.01 3.82

1.01 1.08 0.99 1.06 1.06

3.92

1.06

3.21

1.38

3.05 3.32

1.34 1.42

3.30 2.96

1.37 1.43

3.01

1.45

Note: Responses ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)

C  ooperation with Police Willingness to cooperate with police was measured in the study using a four-item scale adapted from existing literature (Murphy et  al., 2010; Tankebe, 2009a). The scale was measured on a five point Likert-type

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

39

response from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree; a higher score on this scale showed greater levels of self-reported cooperation. The cooperation with police scale was found to be very reliable (Cronbach’s α = 0.87; Mean = 3.61; SD = 1.06).

P  olice Legitimacy Citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy are measured in the study using a five-item scale based on the conceptualization measured by Murphy et al. (2010). The scale measured the beliefs citizens held about the normative appropriateness of what they perceive as right or wrong about police behaviour. Items in the police legitimacy scale were measured on a five point Likert-type response ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5— strongly agree; higher mean scores indicate greater perceptions of legitimacy (Cronbach’s α = 0.86; Mean = 2.14; SD = 0.91).

P  rocedural Justice The procedural justice scale was adapted from Tyler (2006), Tankebe (2009a), and Murphy et al. (2010). The scale has five items which measured four main components of procedural justice: neutrality, fairness, voice, and respect. Items were measured using a five point Likert-type response ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree; a higher mean score on the scale indicated more favourable assessments of procedural justice (Cronbach’s α = 0.88; Mean = 2.50; SD = 0.92).

P  olice Effectiveness Police effectiveness describes the extent to which police achieve their proper, officially sanctioned duties and goals. This scale was administered using a six-item scale. These items were measured using a five-point Likert-type response ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree. A higher score on this scale specified greater perceptions of police effectiveness (Cronbach’s α = 0.92; Mean = 2.55; SD = 1.10).

40 

O. M. Akinlabi

P  redatory Policing Best described as a delicate aspect of police activities, predatory policing is mainly devoted to the personal enrichment and self-preservation of the police themselves or the systematic subjugation of subordinate and vulnerable groups (Gerber & Mendelson, 2008). The predatory policing scale was constructed using a seven-item scale developed by Akinlabi (2013). The items used to construct the scale were measured using a five-­ point Likert-type response ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5— strongly agree. A higher score on this scale indicated high prevalence of policing activities that are considered predatory in nature (Cronbach’s α = 0.90; Mean = 3.68; SD = 0.94).

P  olice Corruption Police corruption in this research setup was measured using a six-item scale adapted from Tankebe (2010), Akinlabi (2011), and Akinlabi (2017b). It focused primarily on perceptions of police corruption rather than the actual experience of corruption. This scale incorporates items about bribe-taking, extortion, and the use of familial connections to influence the police in order to ignore their law-breaking behaviour. The police corruption scale was measured using a five-point Likert-type response ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree. A higher score on this scale indicated greater perceptions of police corruption (Cronbach’s α = 0.88; Mean = 3.98; SD = 0.84).

Police Colonial Origin A police colonial origin scale was developed by the author using a six-­ item scale with five-point Likert-type responses ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree (e.g., “Nigeria police is a conception of the British colonialist”). The scale assessed perceptions about the colonial origin of the police and how this perception affected attitudes towards the police and policing activities (Cronbach’s α  =  0.86; Mean  =  3.14; SD = 1.07).

41

3  Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Willingness… 

Results This study evaluates Nigerians’ perceptions of procedural justice and police effectiveness, and whether police can utilize procedural justice to improve legitimacy and cooperation with police. The analysis also incorporates other factors that may be unique to Nigerians and their socio-­ cultural environment into our understanding of police legitimacy in Nigeria. Table 3.2 presents the mean and standard deviation of each key construct measured in this study. Table 3.3 presents the Pearson’s bivariate correlations between the constructs, Table 3.4 presents a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with police legitimacy as the outcome variable, and Table  3.5 presents a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with cooperation with police as the outcome variable. It is clear from Table 3.2 that the results for cooperation with police are positively skewed. This indicates that the mean of each item in the variables is greater than the median score. The response from these items demonstrates that the public is willing to cooperate with police. A closer Table 3.3  Descriptive statistics and correlations 1 1. Cooperation 1 with police 2. Police legitimacy 3. Procedural justice 4. Police effectiveness 5. Predatory policing 6. Police corruption 7. Police colonial origin Mean SD Cronbach’s α N = 600

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.117** 0.288**

0.216**

0.018

0.009

0.005

1

0.069

0.142** −0.068

−0.026

−0.098*

1

0.494** −0.139** −0.227** −0.028

3.61 2.14 1.06 0.91

1

−0.248** −0.315** −0.106** 1

0.452** 1

0.043 0.098* 1

2.50 0.92

2.55 1.10

3.68 0.94

Note: * Statistically significant at p