A tense legal confrontation is unfolding at the Magistrate Court in Gwagwalada, where human rights activist and civic advocate Manasseh B.P. is standing trial in a case many observers now describe as a troubling test of power, accountability, and the rule of law.
The case, instituted by the Commissioner of Police, follows a complaint filed by Abu Giri, Chairman of Gwagwalada Area Council, and Ezekiel Umar Biko (popularly known as Zezelaga), the APGA candidate for the forthcoming local government elections.
Manasseh was charged under Section 392 of the Penal Code, bordering on criminal defamation, after he publicly demanded accountability over alleged financial misconduct within the Gwagwalada Area Council.
Today in court, the prosecution presented its principal witness, Officer Terso, a police officer attached to the Gwagwalada police division that handled the complaint.
Under examination by the prosecution, Officer Terso told the court that both Abu Giri and Ezekiel Umar came to lodge a complaint against Manasseh, after which he gave Ezekiel an order to arrest Manasseh and bring him to the station.
However, the officer’s testimony conspicuously failed to address critical allegations raised by the defence:
• He did not explain how Manasseh was taken to Abu Giri’s private residence before being brought to the station.
• He did not deny or clarify claims that Manasseh was brutalised, tortured, and intimidated both at the chairman’s house and later in the police station.
Equally striking was the prosecution’s failure to present any documentary or testimonial evidence to disprove the substance of Manasseh’s original claims.
Manasseh’s publication is the assertion that his public statements were based on matters of public interest, including:
• Allegations that Abu Giri is complicit in financial misconduct.
• Claims that Ezekiel Umar Biko acted as a middleman in securing a house for Abu Giri and also collected ₦250 million solar contract from the Area Council.
In court, the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to establish:
• That Abu Giri is not implicated in criminal activity.
• That Ezekiel Umar did not benefit from, facilitate, or receive the alleged ₦250 million contract.
• That Manasseh’s statements were false, malicious, or made with reckless disregard for the truth.
Legal analysts observing the proceedings noted that criminal defamation requires proof of falsity, not merely proof of complaint.
After the prosecution closed its initial presentation, the court adjourned the matter to February 23rd, when defence counsel will commence cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
Outside the courtroom, reactions from lawyers, activists, and civil society organisations were blunt. Several senior advocates described the case as “a misuse of criminal process to silence a whistleblower.”
One human rights lawyer told Chronicles Reporters:
“There is nothing criminal in demanding accountability. This case is not about defamation; it is about power. It is about using the police to intimidate a citizen who asked hard questions.”
Others argued that rather than prosecuting Manasseh, Abu Giri should open the books.
“If the chairman claims innocence, the simplest path is transparency,” another activist said. “Let him publish all council allocations, all contracts awarded, and how every naira was spent.”
Beyond the individuals involved, this case has become a symbolic battle over the shrinking space for civic accountability in local governance.
At stake are fundamental questions:
• Can a citizen question how public funds are spent without facing arrest?
• Can the police be used as instruments of political protection?
• And will the courts draw a firm line between defamation and legitimate public interest speech?
As February 23rd approaches, attention is now firmly on the magistrate court, where the next phase of cross-examination may determine whether this case proceeds as a criminal trial, or collapses as a cautionary tale of abuse of power.
Chronicles Reporters will continue to monitor and report this case as it develops.