Human rights activist and citizen journalist Manasseh B.P. has intensified his campaign for accountability in Gwagwalada, challenging former Gwagwalada Area Council Chairman Hon. Abubakar Jibrin Giri and his associate, Ezekiel Zezelaga, over what he described as an attempt to use the machinery of the court to intimidate him.
In a Facebook statement, Manasseh alleged that Giri and Zezelaga returned to the Magistrate Court seeking a bench warrant for his arrest following the ongoing dispute surrounding his public criticism and allegations concerning the affairs of Gwagwalada Area Council.
According to Manasseh’s account of the proceeding, the Magistrate did not grant the requested warrant and instead directed that he be properly notified before the next adjourned date.
The development has added another layer to a dispute that has increasingly moved beyond personal confrontation into questions about freedom of expression, public accountability and the proper use of judicial processes.
Manasseh says he is not opposed to facing the court and insists that if there is a legitimate case against him, the matter should proceed openly and according to due process.
“I am not running from justice. I am demanding justice,” he stated, arguing that allegations against him should be tested through evidence rather than intimidation.
The activist has repeatedly challenged officials and political actors in Gwagwalada over questions surrounding the management of public resources, contracts, projects, debts and other affairs of the Area Council.
His latest statement therefore places the dispute within a broader argument over whether citizens, journalists and activists should be able to question public officials without being subjected to intimidation.
“Where are the records? Where are the allocations? Where are the debt records? Where are the contracts? Where are the project records? Where is the accountability?” Manasseh asked in his Facebook post.
He challenged Giri to respond to allegations with documentary evidence, rather than what he described as attempts to silence criticism.
The controversy is not entirely new.
A 2025 report by Chronicles Reporters and other Media organizations documented the arrest of human rights activist and Abuja-based journalist Manasseh B.P after he had published reports concerning alleged irregularities in Gwagwalada Area Council. The organisation reported that he was abducted at his residence and alleged that Ezekiel Zezelaga who was the APGA chairmanship candidate was the architect and he planned the abduction. The report also stated that Giri and Zezelaga accused Manasseh of Criminal defamation.
A separate November 2025 report by Legal Linkz also described Manasseh as a human-rights activist and citizen journalist and reported his allegations of assault and unlawful arrest involving FCT police officers, Abu Giri and Zezelaga.
Chronicles Reporters has also previously reported Manasseh’s campaign for accountability concerning Gwagwalada’s former administration, including his demand that alleged wrongdoing be investigated through lawful institutions.
The latest confrontation, however, raises a fundamental question: where does legitimate legal action end and intimidation begin?
The answer cannot be determined by political allegiance or public emotion. It must come from evidence, court records and due process.
Manasseh himself acknowledged this distinction in his statement, saying he would not accuse the new prosecutor handling the matter of wrongdoing without evidence, even while questioning circumstances surrounding the change in prosecution.
That position is significant because allegations of institutional bias are themselves serious claims requiring evidence.
Rather than assuming that the change of prosecutor establishes wrongdoing, the proper question is whether every party receives equal treatment and whether the proceedings are conducted transparently and according to law.
For Manasseh, the principle is straightforward: if there is an offence, it should be proved; if there is evidence, it should be presented; and if there is a legitimate case, he says he is prepared to face it.
His position is consistent with his broader public identity as an activist and citizen journalist who has repeatedly placed questions of accountability at the centre of his public interventions.
The dispute also comes at a time when concerns about the protection of journalists and civic actors in Nigeria remain significant. Media Rights Agenda’s 2025 annual report documented the Gwagwalada incident involving Manasseh within its wider record of freedom-of-expression concerns in Nigeria.
The present court proceedings should therefore be watched carefully—not because any party should be presumed guilty, but because the public deserves confidence that the judicial process is being applied fairly.
Abu Giri and Zezelaga are entitled to pursue any lawful remedy available to them if they believe Manasseh committed an offence.
Manasseh, equally, is entitled to defend himself and to insist that any prosecution against him follow due process.
The court, rather than political pressure, public campaigns or social-media declarations, remains the appropriate institution to determine the legal questions.
For the activist, however, the message from his Facebook post is unmistakable: a legal summons will not cause him to abandon his demand for accountability.
He has called on lawyers, journalists, civil-society organisations, human-rights advocates and members of the public to pay attention to the proceedings.
The battle, as Manasseh presents it, is no longer simply between one activist and two political actors.
It is a test of whether public criticism can coexist with political power, whether accountability can survive political pressure, and whether the courtroom can remain a place where evidence—not influence—determines the outcome.
The allegations made by Manasseh against Giri and Zezelaga remain allegations unless and until established by competent authorities. Likewise, any allegation against Manasseh must be proved through the judicial process rather than through public condemnation.
In the end, the most important questions remain simple:
Let the court speak.
Let the documents speak.
Let the evidence speak.
And let the law take its course.