NSCDC arrests 2 for allegedly buying diesel stolen from telecom facilities

The recent arrest by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Edo State of two individuals for allegedly purchasing diesel stolen from telecommunication facilities highlights the persistent challenge of infrastructure vandalism and the legal ramifications for those who receive stolen property. This incident underscores the critical role of law enforcement in protecting essential national assets and serves as a reminder of the stringent provisions under Nigerian criminal law, particularly Sections 427 of the Criminal Code Act and 316 of the Penal Code Act, which criminalise the receipt of stolen goods. The arrests also bring to the fore the broader efforts to safeguard Critical National Information Infrastructure (CNII) and the potential for severe penalties for offenders, aiming to deter such economically disruptive crimes.

The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), Edo Command, recently apprehended two suspects for allegedly purchasing diesel siphoned from telecommunication towers within the state. This development, while seemingly a localised incident, carries significant implications for Nigeria's legal framework concerning property crimes, the protection of critical national infrastructure, and the broader fight against economic sabotage. The theft of vital resources like diesel from telecommunication facilities not only disrupts essential services but also poses a substantial threat to national security and economic stability.

This article delves into the legal landscape surrounding such offences in Nigeria, focusing on the crime of receiving stolen property and the mandate of the NSCDC. It will examine the statutory provisions governing these acts, the elements required for successful prosecution, and the broader context of safeguarding critical national assets. For legal practitioners, understanding these nuances is crucial for advising clients, whether they are prosecuting offenders, defending the accused, or representing corporate entities impacted by such criminal activities.

The legal framework for addressing theft and the receipt of stolen property in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in two principal statutes: the Criminal Code Act, applicable in the Southern States of Nigeria, and the Penal Code Act, which governs the Northern States. Both legislations criminalise the act of stealing and the subsequent receipt of property obtained through criminal means. Specifically, Section 427 of the Criminal Code Act makes it a felony for any person to receive anything obtained by means of an act constituting a felony or misdemeanour, knowing the same to have been so obtained. Similarly, Section 316 of the Penal Code Act addresses the receipt of stolen property, defining stolen property as that whose possession has been transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust.

The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) derives its powers from the NSCDC Act No. 2 of 2003 and the Amendment Act No. 6 of 2007. These Acts establish the Corps as a paramilitary agency with a core mandate to protect lives, property, and critical national assets and infrastructure (CNAI). This mandate explicitly includes safeguarding public utilities and infrastructure such as oil pipelines, power stations, water resources, and, crucially, telecommunications networks. The NSCDC is empowered to arrest, investigate, and institute legal proceedings against individuals suspected of vandalising or stealing from these vital national assets. The recent Designation and Protection of Critical National Information Infrastructure Order 2024, anchored on the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, further reinforces the legal protection for telecommunications infrastructure, classifying assets like telecom towers, fibre-optic cables, and data centres as critical national infrastructure requiring enhanced protection.

The offence of receiving stolen property, as outlined in Section 427 of the Criminal Code Act and Section 316 of the Penal Code Act, requires the prosecution to prove three essential elements: that the property was received, that it was previously stolen, and that the accused knew it was stolen at the time of receipt. "Receiving" can be established by proving actual physical possession, constructive possession (e.g., through an agent or servant), or aiding in the concealment or disposal of the property. The critical element of "knowledge" often presents a challenge for the prosecution. This knowledge does not necessarily require direct admission but can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the secrecy of the transaction, the ridiculously low price paid for the goods, or the accused's previous dealings with the thief. The doctrine of recent possession, enshrined in Section 148 (now 167) of the Evidence Act, provides that if a person is found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft and cannot give a reasonable explanation, they are presumed to be either the thief or the receiver.

In the context of the current arrests, the diesel, being movable property, is clearly capable of being stolen under Section 382 of the Criminal Code Act. The primary offenders would be those who siphoned the diesel, committing the offence of stealing under Section 383(1) of the Criminal Code Act or theft under Section 286(1) of the Penal Code Act. The arrested individuals, by allegedly purchasing the stolen diesel, face charges of receiving stolen property. The severity of the punishment for receiving stolen property depends on whether the original act of obtaining the property constituted a felony or a misdemeanour. If the original theft was a felony, the receiver is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years; otherwise, the punishment is seven years.

Beyond the direct charges of receiving stolen property, the nature of the stolen items—diesel from telecommunication facilities—introduces a dimension of critical infrastructure protection. The NSCDC's involvement highlights its specific mandate in safeguarding such assets. While the immediate charges may be under the Criminal or Penal Code, the broader implications touch upon economic sabotage and the disruption of essential services, which are concerns addressed by the Critical National Information Infrastructure (CNII) framework. There have been calls from industry stakeholders, such as the Association of Telecommunications Companies of Nigeria (ATCON), for stronger legal backing and more deterrent penalties for offences against telecommunications infrastructure, as current penalties are sometimes perceived as weak. This suggests a potential for future legislative reforms or more robust application of existing laws to reflect the gravity of such crimes against national assets.

Case law such as *R. v. Iyakwe* (1944) W.A.C.A. 180 and *Martins v. State* (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 355 CA illustrate the application of the doctrine of recent possession in establishing guilty knowledge. The case of *R v. Osakwe* [1963] All N.L.R. 362 further clarifies what constitutes "receipt" for the purpose of the offence, emphasizing that actual physical possession is not always necessary. These precedents provide a strong basis for prosecuting individuals involved in the chain of stolen goods, from the initial theft to the final receipt, particularly when the items are critical to national infrastructure.

The arrests by the NSCDC in Edo State serve as a timely reminder to legal professionals and the public alike about the serious legal consequences of engaging in the trade of stolen goods, particularly those pilfered from critical national infrastructure. The robust provisions of the Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code Act, coupled with the NSCDC's expanded mandate in protecting vital assets, demonstrate Nigeria's commitment to combating such crimes. Practitioners should be mindful of the elements required to prove receiving stolen property, especially the crucial aspect of knowledge, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of recent possession.

Moving forward, the legal community should anticipate continued vigilance from law enforcement agencies like the NSCDC in protecting telecommunications and other critical infrastructure. The ongoing discussions around strengthening penalties for offences against Critical National Information Infrastructure suggest that legislative reforms may be on the horizon, potentially leading to more severe sanctions to act as a stronger deterrent. Legal professionals advising businesses on supply chain integrity, or individuals on due diligence in transactions, must emphasise the importance of verifying the legitimate source of goods to avoid inadvertently falling foul of the law on receiving stolen property. This incident underscores the collective responsibility to safeguard national assets and uphold the rule of law against economic saboteurs.