The growing hostility towards activists, investigative journalists, human rights defenders and ordinary Nigerians who dare to challenge powerful interests raises a fundamental question about the state of democracy under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu: Has speaking truth to power become an offence punishable by intimidation, police harassment, physical violence or imprisonment?
I have watched with deep concern as public criticism, demands for accountability and campaigns against abuse of office increasingly expose citizens to dangerous confrontations with political power. What should ordinarily be a democratic exchange of ideas is becoming a struggle for survival whenever the interests of influential politicians, public officials or individuals connected to the establishment are challenged.
My position is clear: Nigeria cannot claim to be a functioning democracy when the people who question authority begin to fear the very institutions established to protect their rights.
The disturbing incidents involving presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore in Ekiti State, activist Onwuka Chimezie, popularly known as Mezie, in Rivers State, and Barrister Nurudeen MD Abdulsalam, Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Gwagwalada Branch, are not matters that should be treated in isolation. Together, they expose serious questions about the relationship between political influence, police power, freedom of expression and the protection of ordinary citizens.
On October 30, 2026, Sowore, the African Action Congress presidential candidate and publisher of Sahara Reporters, was attacked in Ado-Ekiti after a media engagement. He and members of his team sustained injuries. Sowore identified the attackers as government-sponsored thugs and accused security operatives of facilitating their actions.
From my findings, the political connections surrounding the incident demand serious scrutiny, including the links I have identified between individuals involved and the political circle of the Ekiti State Governor, as well as an aide associated with FCT Minister Nyesom Wike. Those connections must be investigated, and nobody should be shielded from accountability because of political office, personal relationships or access to government.
The police subsequently announced the arrest of 11 suspects in connection with the incident. However, the arrest of suspects at the scene or those suspected of carrying out an attack is only one part of the investigative process. Nigerians deserve to know who organised the operation, who financed it, who supplied the weapons, whether any public official facilitated the attack and whether individuals with political influence were involved in planning or protecting those responsible.
Sowore has challenged aspects of the police account and called for a deeper investigation into the people behind the attack. The Ekiti State Government has denied involvement, while the police initially described the incident as an altercation. These conflicting positions make an independent, evidence-based investigation even more necessary.
A government that genuinely respects democracy should not be threatened by an opposition presidential candidate conducting interviews, criticising public officials or mobilising citizens. If the state cannot guarantee the safety of a prominent political activist, what assurance does an ordinary Nigerian have when confronting local political godfathers, powerful traditional institutions or officials accused of misconduct?
The case of Mezie presents another troubling dimension to this crisis. In September 2026, the activist and public affairs commentator was abducted in Abuja by officers of the Rivers State Police Command’s Anti-Kidnapping Squad following his public criticism concerning land-grabbing allegations involving the Rivers State Commissioner of Police, Olugbenga Adepoju Adewole.
The circumstances surrounding the arrest generated serious concern among lawyers and human rights advocates. Mezie’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, condemned the operation and questioned the legality of deploying police officers against a citizen over public criticism of a powerful official. The matter was subsequently referred to the Force Criminal Investigation Department in Abuja, while the Rivers State Police Command said it was not aware of the arrest allegations and directed enquiries to the FCID.
The central issue is not whether a police commissioner or any public official can be investigated or criticised without accountability. Nobody is above lawful investigation, but nobody should be subjected to arbitrary detention or intimidation simply because they have raised uncomfortable questions.
Where a genuine criminal complaint exists, the police should identify the alleged offence, conduct a lawful investigation, respect the suspect’s rights and submit the matter to the appropriate judicial process. An anti-kidnapping unit should not become a convenient instrument for settling personal disputes, punishing critics or discouraging public scrutiny.
A police institution that responds more aggressively to a citizen questioning official conduct than to the substantive complaints being raised risks destroying public confidence in law enforcement. It is particularly disturbing when the subject of criticism is also the authority whose institution is involved in the response.
The recent development involving Barrister Nurudeen MD Abdulsalam, Chairman of the NBA Gwagwalada Branch, further reinforces these concerns. Abdulsalam has accused Colonel Nurudeen Yusuf, President Tinubu’s aide-de-camp and the Elemona of Ilemona, of abuse of power and interference in land disputes involving communities in Kwara State.
Following his public criticism, Abdulsalam said approximately 10 police officers had travelled from Kwara State to Abuja to arrest him. He stated that he was contacted and directed to report to the Gwagwalada Police Division, and he requested a formal invitation from the police. He further attributed the planned operation to the Kwara State Commissioner of Police and expressed concern about the anticipated involvement of the FCT Commissioner of Police.
For a lawyer who heads a branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, the reported development raises questions that go beyond an individual land dispute. It concerns the use of police authority across state boundaries, the protection of a citizen who publicly challenges a powerful figure and the possibility that law enforcement may be drawn into a dispute that should be examined through transparent legal procedures.
The fact that the person at the centre of Abdulsalam’s complaint is an aide to the President makes independent scrutiny particularly important. Public office, military rank, traditional authority and proximity to the Presidency must never become shields against investigation. Equally, the police must not become an enforcement arm for private interests.
I consider the reported move against Abdulsalam a serious warning about the consequences of speaking against powerful interests. His demand for a formal invitation, rather than submitting to an unclear process, also underscores a basic principle: citizens have the right to know why they are being summoned, the legal basis for an investigation and the authority under which coercive powers are being exercised.
But my concern does not end with these national developments. The same questions arise from my own experience in Gwagwalada, where I have consistently demanded accountability over the administration of public resources and the conduct of former Area Council Chairman Abu Giri.
I am deeply concerned about what I regard as the persecution of my person through the office of the FCT Commissioner of Police on behalf of Abu Giri. My public-interest work has focused on the handling of public assets, council finances, contracts, administrative decisions and the obligations of public officials to account to the people they once served.
I have raised concerns about the diversion of public assets and wealth under the former chairman’s administration, and matters concerning his stewardship have been placed before anti-corruption authorities, including the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. These matters deserve serious, transparent investigation, and the appropriate authorities should be permitted to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The question I ask is simple: Why should a citizen demanding accountability for public resources have to fear the police?
If public officials have nothing to hide, they should welcome investigations, release records where the law requires disclosure and answer questions through lawful institutions. They should not seek to turn criticism into a personal confrontation with the machinery of the state.
I reject any attempt to use the office of the FCT Commissioner of Police to intimidate me, silence my investigations or discourage the exposure of wrongdoing. If there is a legitimate complaint against me, let the police state it formally, identify the applicable law and follow due process. I will defend myself through the lawful channels available to me. But I will not abandon the right to demand accountability because somebody with political connections is uncomfortable with my work.
The legal principles involved are not difficult to understand. Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, protects freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. Section 40 protects the right to peaceful assembly and association. Section 35 protects personal liberty and permits deprivation of liberty only on constitutionally recognised grounds and in accordance with lawful procedure. Section 46 provides a route through which people whose fundamental rights have been violated, or are threatened with violation, can seek judicial redress.
These rights do not give anyone immunity from investigation for a genuine criminal offence. They establish, however, that the government cannot lawfully substitute intimidation for evidence or political pressure for due process.
The Police Act, 2020, makes the position even clearer. Section 4(a) expressly assigns the Nigeria Police Force the responsibility of protecting the rights and freedoms of every person in Nigeria as provided by the Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other applicable laws. The police are not established to defend the reputations of politicians, settle land disputes for influential individuals or suppress criticism of public administration. Their responsibility is to protect citizens, prevent and investigate crime, maintain public order and enforce the law without prejudice.
This is why I insist that the Inspector-General of Police and the relevant oversight authorities must take these matters seriously. The circumstances of the attack on Sowore require a thorough investigation that goes beyond the immediate suspects. The circumstances surrounding Mezie’s arrest demand clarity about the legal grounds for the operation and the treatment of citizens who criticise public officials. The reported deployment of Kwara police officers to Abuja in relation to Abdulsalam requires an official explanation of the authority, purpose and procedure governing that action.
My own case also deserves an impartial assessment, free from political interference. No police commissioner should be permitted to use official authority to settle scores on behalf of a politician or former public officeholder. If allegations have been made against me, let them be tested through the law. If officers have acted improperly, they must be held accountable.
The larger danger is the gradual normalisation of fear. When activists are attacked, journalists are threatened, lawyers face pressure and ordinary Nigerians become reluctant to report misconduct, corruption and abuse of power flourish in the shadows. Silence becomes a survival strategy, public institutions lose credibility, and accountability becomes an empty promise repeated at political rallies.
Nigeria’s democracy was not built to serve only those who occupy public offices. Its legitimacy comes from the rights of the people, the accountability of government and the ability of citizens to challenge wrongdoing without being treated as enemies of the state.
I will continue to speak against corruption, abuse of authority, the diversion of public resources and the weaponisation of law enforcement. I will continue to demand that public officials account for their decisions. I will continue to defend the right of ordinary Nigerians to question those who govern them.
Let it be understood that this struggle is not about personal ambition, political appointments or the pursuit of relevance. It is about the dignity of the common man, the protection of public wealth and the preservation of a society in which powerful individuals cannot dictate who may speak, who may investigate and who must remain silent.
To every public official who believes that police intimidation, threats of imprisonment or the deployment of political thugs will silence the people: you misunderstand the character of those who have committed themselves to the defence of human rights.
Prison does not frighten us, and it does not break us. We understand the risks of confronting entrenched interests, but the fear of detention cannot be greater than the responsibility to defend the rights of millions of Nigerians whose voices are routinely ignored.
We will not surrender the public interest to political godfathers. We will not trade the truth for personal safety. We will not allow the machinery of the state to be converted into a weapon against citizens who demand justice.
The common man’s interest must not be sabotaged to protect the powerful. Nigeria belongs to its people, and no administration, political party, police commissioner or influential individual has the authority to extinguish their constitutional freedoms.
Our struggle for justice, accountability and human dignity continues.