Dealing with Professionalism and Acquiring and Managing Legitimacy in a Constitutional Democratic Policing in Nigeria: Where Goes the Procedural Justice Approach?

A major challenge facing Nigeria's criminal justice system is how to balance between carrying out its fundamental task of administration of justice in a professional manner and within acceptable international best practices, while obtaining the support (legitimacy) of people both within and outside the organizations. Criminal justice practitioners around the world are rapidly embracing new ideas and implementing reform, which aims at enhancing both professionalism and legitimacy. While police, courts and corrections are critical stakeholders in criminal justice system, police remains the first point of contact and defines the character of state and democratic governance process of a country as well as shaping what happens in other stages of the criminal justice process. This paper examines current policing approach in democratic Nigeria, and how this approach impacts on both the professionalism and legitimacy of the organization. It holds that the order and law approach (crime control model) currently being favoured in place of the procedural justice approach is anathema to both professionalism and legitimacy, which a police organization desires for an enhanced policing in the era of increasing transformations. The paper concludes that there is the imperative need to adopt the due process (procedural justice) approach characterized by fairness, trust, encouraging dialogue, and voluntary cooperation from the citizens-variables which to all intent and purposes-enhance professionalism, increase legitimacy and subsequently leads to effective and efficient policing.In line with acceptable international best practices, police organisations throughout the world are increasingly becoming concerned on how best to carry out their functions (professionalism) and at same time obtain citizens' cooperation and acceptance (enhanced legitimacy). International best practices speak of authority's conscious conformity to standards of legality (acting according to the rule of law) and moral validity (reflected in a sense of shared moral purpose with citizens (see also Tyler & Jackson, 2013). While police legitimacy is about public confidence, assurance, cooperation, and acceptance of the actions of police personnel in the discharge of their duties, professionalism entails that police personnel conduct themselves both in a manner deemed appropriate and cost effective as they relate with offenders and fight crime.Several studies of police legitimacy show that improved police legitimacy helps police to elicit cooperation, obtain compliance, and gain satisfaction from the general public (see Myhill & Quinton, 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler 2006; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant & Manning, 2013). Obtaining legitimacy helps to drive effective and efficient crime control in modem democracy thereby reducing cost and achieving greater results (Myhill & Quinton, 2011). To obtain this legitimacy requires an approach or policing model that adopts the procedural justice or due process model as opposed to the crime control model (see also Tyler, 2001, 2004, 2006; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Mastrofski et al., 1996; Hinds & Murphy, 2007). The procedural justice model emphasizes on following the due process in dealing with the citizenry by giving preference to justice over and above law and order. It calls on criminal justice practitioners to ensure that they excise their authority in a fair and just way. Police, are thus, expected to ensure that their decision making process, power of discretion and stigmatizing, are fairly and honestly made, (see for examples, Kauzlarich & Barlow, 2009; Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007; Sunshine & Tyler 2003). The due process (procedural) model is described as typically comprising four essential elements. These elements include dialogue, which encourages citizens to take part in decision-making process by authority (citizens' voice), perceived neutrality in decisionmaking, demonstration of dignity and respect through interaction with citizens, and conviction in the trustworthiness of the motives of the authority (see Tyler & Murphy, 2011; Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant & Manning, 2013). …