The Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Hon. Samuel Danjuma Shekwolo, has been dragged to court over a controversial statement in which he allegedly declared that residents of the Area Council must support the All Progressives Congress (APC) or leave.
The legal action, marked Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3984/2026, was instituted by Chronicles Reporters News Limited alongside Mannaseh B.P, a registered member of the African Action Congress (AAC) and resident of Kuje Area Council,
The applicants, through their lawyers from Pathlegal and Co., are asking the court to intervene over what they describe as a serious threat to constitutional rights and democratic freedoms.
The suit arose from a viral video in which the Kuje Area Council Chairman was purportedly heard declaring:
“I have said in my area council that it’s either you are for the APC or you leave the area council. I am not arguing about it at all.”
The applicants are challenging the statement as unconstitutional and are asking the court to declare it null and void on the grounds that it allegedly violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, as well as relevant provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
They are seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the Chairman, his agents, servants or representatives from implementing, encouraging or promoting any form of political expulsion, intimidation, harassment or discrimination against residents based on their political affiliation, belief or opinion.
The applicants are also demanding ₦100 million in exemplary and aggravated damages, alongside an order requiring the Chairman to tender a public apology and publish the apology in two national newspapers.
They are further asking for orders directing relevant security agencies and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to investigate the alleged statement and determine whether it constitutes any electoral offence under applicable laws, including the Electoral Act 2022.
Speaking on the case, lead applicant Paul Bem Mannaseh described the controversy as a fundamental test of whether elected public officials can use the authority of public office to compel political loyalty from citizens.
“This is not just another political case. This is a direct assault on the soul of Nigerian democracy,” Mannaseh stated.
According to him, public office does not confer ownership of the territory being administered, nor does it give an elected official the power to determine the political identity of residents.
“No public officer owns the territory he administers. No Nigerian citizen’s right to live, associate and express political opinion can be held hostage to party loyalty. The video is clear, the words are unambiguous, and the law is crystal. There is simply no defence,” he said.
Mannaseh, who identified himself as an AAC member living in Kuje, said the alleged statement was particularly troubling because of its potential impact on opposition supporters within the Area Council.
“As an AAC member living in Kuje, that statement was a direct threat against me and every opposition supporter in the Area Council. We refuse to be intimidated into silence or forced into exile in our own land. This case is for every Nigerian who still believes that democracy means choice, not coercion,” he stated.
The applicants argue that the controversy goes beyond ordinary political disagreement because the alleged declaration was reportedly made by a serving public official and appears to have linked continued residence within the Area Council to political allegiance.
They contend that such a position, if established, raises serious constitutional questions concerning freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of movement and residence, and protection against discrimination.
The case also places the spotlight on the limits of political authority at the grassroots level and whether residents can lawfully be threatened with exclusion from their communities because they refuse to support the political party controlling the administration.
The applicants maintain that Kuje Area Council belongs to all residents, regardless of their political affiliation, and not exclusively to members or supporters of any political party.
They argue that democratic governance requires citizens to have the freedom to support the political party of their choice, criticise government policies, associate with opposition groups and participate in political activities without fear of retaliation or expulsion.
The suit is therefore seeking judicial determination of whether the statement attributed to the Chairman amounts to an unlawful attempt to condition citizens’ residence and participation in community life on political loyalty.
The controversy has already generated public reactions, with the applicants stating that civil society organisations, political actors and human rights advocates have expressed concern over the remarks.
The applicants are now asking the court to determine the legality of the alleged statement and grant the declarations, injunctions, damages and other reliefs sought in the suit.
For Chronicles Reporters News Limited, the case represents a broader question about accountability in local government: whether elected officials can exercise public authority without regard to the constitutional rights of citizens who hold opposing political views.
As the legal battle unfolds, attention is expected to remain focused on Kuje Area Council and on whether the courts will draw a clear line between legitimate political mobilisation and the alleged use of public office to compel political allegiance.
The Chairman’s position or response to the allegations contained in the suit was not included in the material available for this report.