Argumentation in police-suspect interactions in Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract

In the Nigerian context, studies on police interrogation have acknowledged that investigating police officers (IPOs) wield power during  police-suspect interactions (PSIs). We argue that power is not solely wielded by the IPOs during interrogation sessions; the suspect, who  is often considered as a lesser participant during interrogation session, adopts argumentation to contest stances with IPOs. This study  examines the rationale behind IPOs’ and suspects’ arguments in PSIs with a view to describing the implications of such arguments for  power relations in PSIs. The study adopts insights from Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectal theory of argumentation (PTA). The study adopts a qualitative research design. Data for the study come from 12 interrogation sessions on cases of  attempted murder, rape, felony and theft, tape-recorded at the Oyo State Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department (SCIID),  Ìyágankú, Ibadan. While IPOs argue by posing a positive self, developing themes around cases, discouraging denials and retaining  suspects’ attention, suspects on the other hand argue to affirm positive selves and object justification, counter IPOs’ stances and create  extraneous details to distract IPOs. The study posits that argument is a veritable discourse tool for negotiating power in PSIs.