VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF SUPERNUMERARY POLICE OFFICERS

A Supernumerary Police Officer is Vicariously Liable to the Nigeria Police Force, Not to the Organization or Individual to Whom Assigned If by the nature of things, a person such as a supernumerary police officer performs their duty while under a statutory command and supervision, the responsibility for their acts must lie with the institution that retains disciplinary and operational control over them (supernumerary police officer).

A Supernumerary Police Officer is Vicariously Liable to the Nigeria Police Force, Not to the Organization or Individual to Whom Assigned If by the nature of things, a person such as a supernumerary police officer performs their duty while under a statutory command and supervision, the responsibility for their acts must lie with the institution that retains disciplinary and operational control over them (supernumerary police officer).

This review is based on the liability (including vicarious liability) of a supernumerary police officer acting while attached to a private organization. As held in the case of FIDELITY BANK PLC v. OLANREWAJU (2025) 4 NWLR (Pt 1981) 127, to what extent can an organization or individual be held vicariously liable for the actions of such an officer?

A short account of the fact of the case of FIDELITY BANK PLC v. OLANREWAJU, the point of reference in this review, is that: 

On April 23, 2013, a mobile police officer attached to the appellant’s Alaba branch in Lagos State physically assaulted the 1st respondent during a banking transaction. The 1st respondent initiated an action under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules against the appellant and the Commissioner of Police, Lagos State, seeking a declaration that the act violated his fundamental rights and requesting N3 million in damages. The trial court found in favour of the 1st respondent and awarded N2 million against the appellant. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

 The appellant, dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the supernumerary police officer was not its agent and therefore it should not bear liability for his conduct. The 2nd respondent (the Commissioner of Police) did not file a defence. Fundamentally, the Supreme Court was invited to decide whether the appellant could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the supernumerary police officer posted to its premises.

A supernumerary police officer, is defined by Section 2 of the Police Act, as a police officer appointed under sections 18, 19, or 21 of the Act or by authorization under section 20. The word “supernumerary is derived from the Latin term “supernumerarii”, historically referring to advocates who were not officially registered or attached to any jurisdiction. Under Nigerian law, supernumerary police officers are engaged at the request of individuals, organizations, or government departments that require police services. However, they remain officers of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and are subject to the command, discipline, and authority of the Inspector General of Police or the relevant State Commissioner of Police. 

Section 18(3) of the Police Act specifically provides that such officers possess the powers, privileges, and immunities of regular police officers within their designated areas of operation and are regarded as members of the Force for all purposes, including disciplinary control. Their posting to a private or corporate body is strictly administrative and does not alter their status as agents of the NPF. Any control exercised by the requesting organization is merely operational, not legal or disciplinary in nature. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the appellant, a private financial institution, could properly be held vicariously liable for the conduct of a supernumerary police officer, given the statutory framework governing the appointment, command, and disciplinary control of such officers.

The apex court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the legal and institutional framework regulating the engagement of supernumerary police officers places them squarely within the Nigeria Police Force. It was affirmed that such officers, though attached operationally to a private or public institution, are not subject to the control or direction of that entity in a manner sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

The Court emphasized the provisions of Sections 18(3)(a)-(d) of the Police Act, which confer upon supernumerary officers the status of full fledged members of the Nigeria Police Force, for all purposes, including discipline and command. Reference was made to the settled jurisprudence in cases such as Dino v. S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. (2018), and Organ v. Nigerian LNG Ltd. (2013), which underscored the constitutional and statutory nature of the police command structure.

Accordingly, the Court held that since Fidelity Bank neither employed the officer nor exercised legal control over him, there existed no agency or master servant relationship to sustain a finding of vicarious liability. 

Implications and Legal Position on Vicarious Liability

The Supreme Court’s reasoning aligns with the orthodox legal position that vicarious liability presupposes the existence of a relationship wherein the principal exercises substantial control over the acts of the wrongdoer. In the context of supernumerary police officers, that control disciplinary, administrative, and operational is retained solely by the Nigeria Police Force.

In evaluating whether liability may be transferred to the requesting institution, courts will consider:

1. Whether the officer acted under the direct instruction of the institution;
2. Whether there existed a contract of employment or service;
3. Whether the officer functioned as a de facto employee or agent of the institution.

In the absence of any of these elements, no liability can be ascribed to the institution, notwithstanding that the officer was physically stationed on its premises or acted ostensibly for its benefit.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the instant case FIDELITY BANK PLC v. OLANREWAJU  provides welcome clarity on the legal status of supernumerary police officers and reaffirms the following legal principles:

• A supernumerary police officer remains, for all intents and purposes, a member of the Nigeria Police Force, irrespective of the location of assignment.
• No vicarious liability arises in favour of a private individual or institution to whom such an officer is attached unless a demonstrable agency or employment relationship is established.
• The Nigeria Police Force bears ultimate legal responsibility for acts carried out by its officers including supernumerary officers provided those acts occur within the scope of their duties.

This case reinforces the doctrinal boundaries of vicarious liability and reiterates the statutory autonomy of the Nigeria Police Force in matters of control, discipline, and accountability for its personnel.

About the Author:

Muhammad Olohuntobi Adekoya is a member of Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached via: +2348141543337.