Fresh controversy has erupted over the growing presence of armed security operatives within Nigeria’s judicial environment following allegations of harassment, intimidation, and assault at the Federal High Court in Abuja during proceedings linked to the trial of separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu.
Human rights lawyer and activist Tope Temokun, in a strongly worded statement issued on May 18, 2026, accused security agencies attached to the court of turning access to justice into what he described as “selective privilege controlled by armed operatives.”
Temokun alleged that lawyers and litigants were subjected to intense security screening and restrictive controls at the entrance of the Federal High Court, Abuja, while a legal practitioner was reportedly assaulted during attempts to gain access into the court premises.
According to him, operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) alongside court security personnel allegedly barricaded access routes, screened journalists and members of the public, and imposed selective clearance procedures before entry into the court complex.
The lawyer described the development as a direct threat to constitutional democracy and open justice.
“What happened today at the Federal High Court, Abuja, is deeply troubling. Once again, lawyers and litigants reportedly faced harassment and restriction at the gates of justice,” Temokun stated.
He revealed that the latest incident reflects a pattern he had previously challenged in court through constitutional suits filed against the State Security Service and the leadership of the Federal High Court.
In one of the suits, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2021, Temokun challenged a Federal High Court circular on media accreditation during the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the directive unlawfully restricted journalists and public access to court proceedings.
He claimed the suit was dismissed without hearing after it was allegedly called in their absence on a date fixed without notice to his legal team, adding that an appeal has already been filed against the dismissal order.
The activist further disclosed that he later instituted another suit against the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, challenging portions of the Practice Directions on Terrorism Cases, which he argued empowered authorities to create security perimeters around court premises, restrict access, and limit media coverage of judicial proceedings.
Temokun maintained that such measures violate Section 36(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which guarantees that court proceedings must be conducted in public.
“Public hearing cannot mean that citizens are screened out at the gates while only selected persons are later permitted inside. Access to justice begins from access to the court itself,” he argued.
He warned that the continued militarisation of courts could erode public confidence in the judiciary and weaken democratic accountability.
Drawing comparisons with global legal precedents, Temokun referenced the United States Supreme Court decision in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980), which affirmed the importance of open criminal trials in preserving public trust in the justice system.
He also cited the famous 1924 English legal principle in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, where Lord Hewart declared that “justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Temokun called on the Nigerian Bar Association to move beyond what he described as “routine statements” and take decisive action against alleged intimidation of lawyers and restrictions around court proceedings.
“The NBA must strongly condemn today’s incident, demand accountability for the assault on counsel, resist the growing culture of court militarisation, and defend the constitutional principle of open justice before it is completely eroded,” he said.
The incident has reignited concerns among lawyers, civil rights groups, and media observers over the increasing deployment of armed security personnel around politically sensitive court cases in Nigeria, particularly those involving terrorism, separatism, and high-profile political disputes.
Observers warn that continued restrictions around court environments risk creating a perception that justice is no longer freely accessible to ordinary Nigerians.
“The judiciary is believed to be the last hope of the common man but if that hope becomes barricaded behind armed operatives and selective clearance at the gate, then justice itself is in danger,” Temokun declared.
His concluding words captured the mood surrounding the controversy:
“Justice must not only be done; it must manifestly be seen to be done. Today in Abuja, justice was obstructed at the gate.”