The fight against cultism is a legitimate and necessary objective of government. No society can prosper where criminal gangs terrorise communities, engage in killings, extortion, kidnapping, and violence with impunity. The people of Edo State are entitled to security and the government is under a constitutional obligation to provide it.
However, in pursuing that objective, government must remain within the boundaries established by the Constitution. The true test of constitutional governance is not how government treats law-abiding citizens but how it exercises power against those accused of criminal conduct.
One of the most controversial aspects of the Edo State Anti-Cultism and Related Offences Law 2025 is the provision permitting the demolition or forfeiture of properties allegedly connected to cult-related activities. While politically attractive and publicly popular, the constitutional implications are profound.
The question is simple:
Can the government demolish a person’s property because another person committed a crime there?
The answer is far more complicated than the headlines suggest.
The Constitutional Right to Property
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees every citizen the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.
Section 43 provides:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every citizen of Nigeria shall have the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.”
Section 44 goes further by protecting citizens from compulsory acquisition of property except in accordance with a law that provides for due process and compensation.
These provisions are not decorative constitutional ornaments. They are fundamental rights intended to protect citizens against arbitrary state action.
A house is often the most valuable asset a person owns. It may represent decades of labour, savings, inheritance, family history, and economic security.
The destruction of such property by the State is therefore one of the most serious exercises of governmental power.
Criminal Liability Is Personal
One of the oldest principles of criminal law is that guilt is personal.
A person is punished because he committed an offence, not because he is related to, associated with, or connected to someone who committed an offence.
This principle runs through every modern criminal justice system.
If a tenant commits murder in a rented property, the landlord does not go to prison.
If a visitor commits armed robbery from a family house, the homeowner is not automatically guilty.
If an employee stores illegal items in company premises without management’s knowledge, the company owner is not automatically criminally liable.
Punishment follows personal culpability.
The difficulty with demolition orders is that they often blur this distinction.
The property is punished even when the owner may be entirely innocent.
The Innocent Landlord Problem
Consider a landlord living in Lagos who rents a property in Benin City.
Unknown to him, a tenant uses the premises for cult-related meetings.
The tenant is subsequently arrested and convicted.
Can the State constitutionally demolish the building?
The landlord neither participated in the crime nor benefited from it.
He may never have visited the property.
He may have carried out reasonable checks before renting it.
Yet the practical effect of demolition is that he suffers a punishment far more severe than the convicted tenant.
The tenant serves a prison sentence.
The landlord loses a lifetime investment.
Such a result raises obvious questions of fairness and proportionality.
The Family Home Problem
The constitutional difficulties become even more acute where multiple persons have interests in the property.
A typical family home may belong to:
- a husband and wife jointly;
- several siblings through inheritance;
- minor children through succession rights;
- mortgage lenders;
- tenants;
- business occupants.
If one individual uses a portion of that property for criminal activity, demolition punishes every innocent stakeholder.
The spouse loses a home.
Children lose shelter.
Tenants lose accommodation.
Banks lose security for loans.
Yet none of these persons may have committed any offence.
The law traditionally rejects collective punishment precisely because innocent people become collateral damage.
Allegations Are Not Convictions
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of recent enforcement activities is that some demolitions reportedly appear to have occurred following allegations or arrests rather than after completed criminal trials and convictions.
This distinction is constitutionally critical.
An allegation is not proof.
An arrest is not guilt.
A charge is not a conviction.
Section 36 of the Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence.
Every accused person is deemed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.
This principle exists because allegations can be false.
Witnesses can be mistaken.
Investigations can be flawed.
Political opponents can make accusations.
Neighbours can harbour grudges.
The legal system insists on trial and conviction before punishment precisely because human beings make mistakes.
Where property is demolished before the conclusion of judicial proceedings, the State effectively imposes punishment before guilt has been established.
That approach sits uneasily with constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and due process.
The Irreversibility Problem
A prison sentence can be overturned.
A conviction can be quashed.
Compensation can sometimes be awarded.
A demolished building presents a different problem.
Once the bulldozers move in, the damage is permanent.
Suppose an accused person is eventually acquitted on appeal.
Suppose a conviction is overturned because evidence was fabricated.
Suppose prosecutors withdraw charges.
The house remains gone.
The family remains displaced.
The business remains destroyed.
The constitutional concern is therefore not merely whether demolition is permissible but whether adequate safeguards exist before such an irreversible sanction is imposed.
Due Process Requires Judicial Determination
The courts have consistently held that government must act within the law and in accordance with due process before depriving citizens of their property.
The constitutional question is not whether cultists should be punished.
The question is whether government can lawfully destroy property without first establishing through proper judicial proceedings:
- that a criminal offence occurred;
- that the property was actually used in committing the offence;
- that the owner knew or participated in the criminal activity;
- that innocent third-party interests have been considered; and
- that the sanction is proportionate to the circumstances.
Without these safeguards, demolition risks becoming an executive punishment imposed by allegation rather than judicial determination.
A Dangerous Precedent
Laws enacted to combat one social evil often establish precedents that later governments expand.
Today the target may be cultism.
Tomorrow it may be political protests.
The following day it may be another category of offence.
Constitutional protections exist precisely because governments change, political priorities shift, and powers granted in one era are often used differently in another.
Once the principle is accepted that property may be destroyed based on alleged criminal association, the protection afforded by Sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution becomes significantly weakened.
Fighting Crime Without Abandoning the Constitution
None of these concerns diminish the seriousness of cultism.
The State has every right to prosecute offenders vigorously.
It may imprison convicted offenders.
It may seize proceeds of crime following due process.
It may confiscate assets directly linked to criminal conduct where constitutional requirements are satisfied.
What it must not do is abandon the fundamental distinction between an accused person and a convicted person, or between a guilty offender and an innocent property owner.
The Constitution does not become suspended because a crime is unpopular.
Indeed, constitutional protections matter most when public emotion is at its highest.
Conclusion
The Edo State Anti-Cultism Law reflects a genuine desire to address a serious security challenge. However, the demolition provisions raise difficult constitutional questions that will almost certainly find their way before the courts.
The right to own property is constitutionally protected.
Criminal liability is personal.
The presumption of innocence remains fundamental.
Where buildings are demolished on the basis of allegations rather than convictions, or where innocent third parties lose their property because of another person’s conduct, the State risks crossing the line from law enforcement into collective punishment.
The fight against cultism is necessary.
The preservation of constitutional rights is equally necessary.
A democratic society must be capable of doing both.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 