By OLUSOJI DAOMI
There is a scene that has become painfully familiar across Nigeria. A young businessman approaches his friend, colleague, cousin or church member with an earnest plea. “Please help me. I only need your signature as my guarantor. I will repay the loan before the due date.” Trust triumphs over caution. The signature is appended. The loan is approved. Everyone goes home happy.
Months later, the borrower disappears, loses his business, relocates without notice or simply refuses to answer calls. Then comes the dreaded telephone call.
“If he does not pay by tomorrow morning, we will arrest you.”
For many Nigerians, those words are enough to trigger sleepless nights. Some immediately begin to borrow money to settle another person’s debt. Others run from pillar to post seeking political intervention. Some even go into hiding, convinced that the next knock on the door will be from armed policemen.
But should every guarantor live in fear simply because a borrower defaulted? Is signing as a guarantor the same thing as signing away one’s liberty?
The answer requires separating law from intimidation, and rights from rumours.
One of the greatest challenges facing Nigeria today is not merely ignorance of the law but the willingness of some individuals and organisations to exploit that ignorance. It has become almost routine for creditors, recovery agents and even some legal practitioners to threaten arrest whenever a borrower defaults. The frightening part is that many citizens assume such threats are backed by law simply because they are delivered with confidence.
Confidence, however, is not legality.
A threat may be loud and still be unlawful.
A demand may sound official and still have no legal foundation.
This distinction lies at the heart of every society governed by the rule of law.
Many Nigerians mistakenly believe that once they agree to become a guarantor, they automatically become criminally responsible for another person’s financial conduct. That belief is legally inaccurate.
When a person signs as a guarantor, what the law generally creates is a contractual obligation. In simple language, the guarantor is making a promise to the lender that if the borrower fails to repay the loan according to the agreed terms, the guarantor may become financially liable in accordance with the guarantee. It is an undertaking to answer for another person’s debt. It is not a confession of criminal liability.
This distinction is fundamental.
Civil liability and criminal liability are not twins.
One concerns obligations arising from agreements or legal duties between individuals. The other concerns offences against the state created by law.
Many people owe money.
Not everyone who owes money has committed a crime.
Imagine a familiar Nigerian scenario.
A woman who owns a small fashion shop in Aba obtains a business loan to expand her enterprise. Her elder brother signs as guarantor because he believes in her dream. Unfortunately, the economy becomes difficult. Sales collapse. She struggles to meet repayment obligations.
Has the brother committed a criminal offence because his sister’s business failed?
Certainly not.
Or consider a civil servant in Kaduna who guarantees a colleague’s cooperative loan. Months later, the colleague suffers a serious illness and loses his income. The cooperative threatens that if payment is not made immediately, the guarantor will be arrested.
The legal question remains the same.
Has the guarantor committed a crime merely because the borrower could not pay?
Again, the answer is no.
The borrower may have breached a contractual obligation. The guarantor may eventually become financially answerable depending on the terms of the guarantee. But neither situation automatically transforms a civil dispute into a criminal offence.
This principle has been affirmed repeatedly by Nigerian courts over the years. The judiciary has consistently maintained that the Nigeria Police Force is not established to serve as a debt recovery agency. The constitutional and statutory responsibilities of the police relate to the prevention and detection of crime, preservation of law and order, protection of lives and property, and enforcement of criminal law. They are not designed to compel citizens to pay ordinary civil debts through intimidation or unlawful detention.
Indeed, the law speaks with remarkable clarity on one important point.
Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 prohibits what lawyers describe as arrest in lieu. Put in everyday language, the police cannot lawfully arrest one person simply because another person is alleged to have committed an offence or defaulted in fulfilling an obligation.
This provision reflects one of the oldest principles of justice. Liability is personal.
Your neighbour’s debt is not your crime.
Your friend’s default is not your offence.
Your relative’s inability to repay a loan does not automatically justify depriving you of your liberty.
That is why every Nigerian should understand the difference between recovering money and prosecuting crime.
The law provides lawful methods for recovering debts. If a borrower refuses to pay according to the loan agreement, the creditor has every right to approach the appropriate court seeking recovery of the outstanding amount. Depending on the terms of the guarantee, the creditor may also institute civil proceedings against the guarantor. The court will examine the agreement, hear both sides and determine the rights and obligations of the parties.
That is how the rule of law functions.
Not through threats.
Not through midnight arrests.
Not through harassment.
Not through turning police stations into collection centres for private debts.
This is not to suggest that every dispute involving a loan remains purely civil.
The law is more nuanced than that.
Suppose a person obtained a loan by presenting forged documents. Suppose false identities were deliberately used. Suppose there was evidence that several individuals conspired from the beginning to deceive the lender with no intention of repayment. Suppose fictitious collateral was intentionally presented to induce the release of funds.
The character of the matter changes.
The issue is no longer merely that money was not repaid.
The allegation becomes fraud, obtaining by false pretence, forgery, conspiracy or another recognised criminal offence under Nigerian law.
In such circumstances, the involvement of law enforcement agencies may become legally justifiable because the investigation concerns the alleged criminal conduct rather than the unpaid debt itself.
This distinction cannot be overemphasised.
The police investigate crimes.
The courts determine civil liability for ordinary contractual disputes.
Confusing the two weakens public confidence in the justice system.
There is another lesson hidden beneath this discussion, one that concerns those who readily agree to become guarantors.
Too many Nigerians sign guarantee forms out of friendship, sentiment or family pressure without reading the accompanying documents. Some do not know the amount being borrowed. Others never ask about the repayment period, applicable interest or consequences of default. Some merely sign because refusing would appear unfriendly.
Months later, friendship evaporates but the legal consequences remain.
A guarantee is not a ceremonial signature.
It is not an act of social courtesy.
It is a legally significant commitment capable of exposing the guarantor to substantial financial liability if the borrower defaults. Before signing any guarantee, every Nigerian should understand exactly what obligations are being undertaken.
Questions are not signs of distrust.
They are signs of prudence.
Trust is admirable.
Blind trust can be expensive.
Equally, lenders must appreciate that the law provides effective legal mechanisms for debt recovery without resorting to intimidation. The civil courts exist precisely to resolve contractual disputes. Respect for due process strengthens commercial confidence far more than unlawful threats ever can.
Nigeria’s growing credit economy depends on a delicate balance.
Borrowers must honour their obligations.
Guarantors must appreciate the seriousness of the commitments they undertake.
Lenders must pursue recovery through lawful means.
Law enforcement agencies must resist attempts to convert criminal investigation into private debt collection.
When each institution performs only its lawful role, justice becomes predictable and commerce flourishes.
Perhaps the greatest lesson is that liberty occupies a special place under our constitutional democracy. Freedom should never become collateral for another person’s unpaid debt unless there is credible evidence of an actual criminal offence recognised by law. Financial responsibility and criminal responsibility are not interchangeable concepts.
The next time someone says, “If the borrower does not pay, we will arrest you because you signed as guarantor,” do not respond with panic. Respond with knowledge. Ask whether the matter concerns an ordinary debt or an allegation of crime. The answer may determine whether the threat is grounded in law or merely in intimidation.
For in every constitutional democracy worthy of its name, rights do not disappear simply because fear arrives first. Knowledge remains the first and strongest line of defence against abuse, and no citizen should surrender liberty simply because another person failed to repay a loan.
READ ALSO:Â
Osun 2026: Oyebamiji visits family of slain APC loyalist, accident victims in Ede
Ogun guber: Yewa leaders, youths, others endorse PDP candidate, Adebutu
Journalist’s death: Witnesses to testify as autopsy reports near completion
Windstorm kills seven, affects 5,403 residents in Jigawa
MUSWEN congratulates Fajimite on election as MULAN president
SUPERNEWS @10: Expert seeks stronger oil, insurance alliance to deepen local content
iDICE national coordinator, Adebayo, to keynote QEDNG summit
NSSF lauds standard of First Bank/SOF National Secondary Schools Championship
