Omoyele Sowore has spent much of his public life presenting himself as a permanent victim of power. Every confrontation with authority becomes persecution, every court appearance becomes a stage, and every allegation against him becomes proof that the state fears his voice. That routine has served him for years, but recent proceedings before the Federal High Court in Abuja have made the contradiction harder to ignore.

Democracy gives citizens the right to criticise government, oppose power, and mobilise public opinion. That right must remain protected, especially in a country where public institutions still carry public mistrust. Yet democratic freedom also carries discipline. The right to criticise government does not create a right to damage reputations, and the right to oppose authority does not place any citizen above the law.

Sowore’s public life has always drawn strength from agitation. From student union politics at the University of Lagos to his later years as the founder of Sahara Reporters, he cultivated the image of a man permanently at war with authority. That posture may have mattered in the past, but he has refused to mature. Even after founding a political party and contesting presidential elections, he still clings to the habits of street confrontation, behaving as though activism should exempt him from the restraint, evidence and discipline expected of anyone seeking public power. He wants the moral authority of activism, the protection claimed by journalism and the legitimacy of party politics, while resisting the responsibilities that come with all three.

That weakness is at the centre of the criminal charge brought against him by the Department of State Services over his alleged description of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal” on social media. On 8 May 2026, Justice Mohammed Garba Umar dismissed Sowore’s no-case submission and held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case sufficient to require him to enter his defence. That ruling did not convict him. It rejected his argument that there was no case to answer and confirmed that the matter deserved a defence rather than an early termination.

A serious democracy must not treat accusation as conviction. Sowore remains entitled to his defence, fair proceedings and every protection the law gives an accused person. But he cannot turn the existence of a legal process into automatic evidence of repression. Courts exist to test claims, weigh evidence and determine whether speech has crossed a lawful boundary. A citizen who demands accountability from others cannot treat accountability as tyranny when the process turns toward him.

The April 2026 judgment in his rights suit against the DSS, its Director-General and Meta Platforms made the issue clearer. Sowore had challenged the reported takedown of his Facebook post and the deactivation of his account, claiming that his rights to fair hearing, expression and association had been violated. The Federal High Court dismissed the suit, declined his reliefs and awarded costs of N1.5 million against him. The court held that the complaint made to Meta did not violate his fundamental rights, and that freedom of expression may be curtailed where necessary to protect the rights and reputation of others.

That ruling goes to the heart of the matter. Rights do not exist in isolation from the rights of others. The Constitution protects expression, but it also allows lawful limits in the interest of public order, morality, security and reputation. A person cannot casually brand another person a criminal in the court of public opinion and then retreat into constitutional language when asked to justify the statement. Democracy protects robust criticism, but it does not require society to treat reputational harm as a harmless by-product of activism.

Sowore’s courtroom conduct also reveals the same instinct. In March 2026, the Nigerian Bar Association criticised him after an attempted media briefing inside a Federal High Court courtroom in Abuja. Reports said a Senior Advocate of Nigeria objected, and the NBA later stated that courtrooms are open to the public, but not as arenas for performance. Sowore rejected the NBA’s position and accused the association of selective outrage. That response was revealing. Even when the issue concerned courtroom dignity, he treated correction as hostility.

The pattern is: every arrest of alleged lawbreakers becomes a campaign opportunity, every institutional rebuke becomes a conspiracy, and every court process becomes material for martyrdom. Sowore has mastered the politics of turning procedure into spectacle. That style may excite supporters, but it weakens public reasoning. It teaches younger citizens that insult is courage, accusation is evidence, and institutions deserve respect only when they produce favourable outcomes.

His defenders often collapse the distinction between free speech and reputational injury. They frame every response to him as an attack on dissent. Free speech includes the right to criticise a President, expose public failure, challenge institutions and mobilise citizens. It does not excuse the need for evidence when a person makes grave personal allegations, turn social media into a court of law, or make any political actor too important to be sued, prosecuted, questioned or corrected.

This matter is beyond Sowore. Nigeria already suffers from a public culture where noise often defeats substance, allegations outrun facts, and outrage earns more reward than discipline. The state must not criminalise dissent or use security agencies to settle political discomfort. Activists and opposition figures must not convert democratic freedoms into tools of reputational violence. Both impulses damage democracy.

The strongest defence of democracy is equal accountability. Everyone must live under the same constitutional order. That order allows criticism but protects reputation, permits dissent but demands evidence, and recognises opposition without rewarding defamation as courage. Sowore has the right to oppose the government, contest elections, publish unfavourable stories and test public institutions. But he also has the duty to defend his words when they carry legal consequences.

For too long, Sowore thrived on the confusion between dissent and disorder. He has treated provocation as proof of conviction and institutional response as proof of victimhood. That habit has brought him attention, but attention is not credibility. If Sowore has evidence for his claims, the courtroom gives him a lawful venue to present it. If his words were fair comment, his defence can argue so. If his politics depends on making grave claims without bearing the burden of proof, then the issue has moved beyond activism to impunity. Democracy protects Sowore’s right to speak, but it does not owe him freedom from the burden of defending his words.

*Okoroafor is an Abuja-based public affairs  analyst.

READ ALSO:

MUSWEN seeks partnership with BOI on youth, women empowerment

Beheaded teacher Michael was someone’s son

Ebola: WHO records 500 suspected cases, 130 deaths in DRC

Arsenal are champions as City fail to beat Bournemouth

Why media must embrace conflict-sensitive reporting -CDS

Lagos is the beating heart of Africa’s digital economy -Sanwo-Olu

African Insurance Inc. defeats insurance firms

FG suspends planned closure of Eko Bridge, gives reason

Retirement summit for informal sector workers holds tomorrow

Lagos 2027: Badagry division endorses Hamzat for governor

UNIPORT, UNIBEN win NCDMB-sponsored engineering regional Olympiad

The post Sowore and the politics of consequence-free dissent appeared first on Frontpageng.

Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after Sowore was arraigned on two-count amended charge filed against him by the Department of State Services, DSS, and pleaded not guilty to the counts.

In the amended charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025 and filed on December 5, Sowore is named as sole defendant.

Although Sowore, X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp were named in the earlier charge as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively, in the amended charge, the names of 2nd and 3rd defendants were dropped.

In count one of the amended charge, the DSS alleged that Sowore, on or about August 25, 2025, did knowingly send a message by means of a computer system or network, through his official “X” (formerly Twitter) handle page, @YeleSowore.

In the message, Sowore was alleged to have posted the following tweet: “This criminal@officlalABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption under his regime in Nigeria.

“What audacity to lie shamelessly!”

The message, which he knew to be false, was said to be posted for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order in Nigeria, posing a threat to life, or causing such message to be sent.

He is accused to have committed an offence of cyberstalking contrary to Section 24(1) (b) and 24(2) (a), (b), and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024 and punishable under the same section.

The prosecution lawyer applied that the names of the 2nd and 3rd defendants be removed and Justice Umar struck out “X” and Facebook from the charge.

Kehinde, therefore, pleaded that the two counts be read to Sowore.

Counsel to Sowore, Marshal Abubakar, did not oppose Kehinde‘s application that the charge be read to his client for him to take his plea.

After the counts were read to Sowore, he pleaded not guilty and Abubakar prayed the court to allow Sowore to continued to enjoy the earlier bail granted to him and the court granted it.

The DSS lawyer then informed the court that the prosecution witness was in court to testify in the case and that they were ready to proceed.

But Abubakar told the court that they were not ready to go on with the case.

The lawyer submitted that in the proof of evidence attached to the charge, names of witnesses were listed but no single name was mentioned in the case.

Besides, Abubakar, who said that no single testimony of the witnesses were attached, argued that that violated Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution.

He further submitted that he needed the adequate time and facility to prepare their defence.

“The depositions of the witnesses and list of witnesses must be frontloaded and they have failed to do this.

“The witnesses are unknown to us and unknown to law.

“Every material needed for the defence of the defendant must be provided for his defence but they have failed to do so my lord,” he added, citing two previous Supreme Court cases and Section 379(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice System (ACJA), 2015 to back his argument.

But Kehinde disagreed with Abubakar.

The senior lawyer submitted that the provision of ACJA as quoted by Abubakar had no bearing in the instant.

Besides, he said reliance on that provision of the law was grossly misconceived and an insult to the court.

“The provision of Section 36(6) that he relied on does not provide that we must provide a name to our witnesses before bringing them to court,” he said.

Kehinde said the defence was at liberty, after the witness must have given the evidence, to ask for a stand down or an adjournment to cross examine their witness.

He said that Abubakar’s submission was a ploy to delay the trial, urging the court to discountenance the argument.

“The concern of parties should be to have the matter determined expeditiously,” he added.

“I submit that the argument of my learned brother is not relevant in this case.

“We have front-loaded the witnesses and we have also front-loaded the charge and exhibits which emanated from the defendants.

“We have also exhibited the case summary,” the senior lawyer said.

After taking all the arguments, Justice Umar adjourned until January 22 for definite hearing.

Source: NAN

READ ALSO:

Sanwo-Olu signs Lagos N4.4trn ‘Budget of Shared Prosperity’

Police officer shoots colleague dead, injures others

Stock market opens week lower on selloffs

CBN pensioners hail govt on ASUU, plead for similar intervention

MUSWEN president commends Olowu of Owu for attending GPC meeting

Tinubu congratulates Alake on re-election as AMSG chair

AFCON: APC chair leads talks for new future for Nigerian football

AFCON 2025: Morocco’s Díaz clinches golden boot award

AFCON 2025: Senegal win second title, beat Morocco 1-0

EXTRA: Time for Alaafin to restrategize, By Azuh Arinze

The post False claim against Tinubu: Court fixes date for Sowore’s trial appeared first on Frontpageng.

He was arrested on Thursday by armed policemen within the premises of the Federal High Court in Abuja, where he had gone to show solidarity with the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.

The police, it was gathered, insisted that Sowore must go with them to the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Police Command headquarters.

Sowore, it would be recalled, on Monday, led the “Free Nnamdi Kanu Protest” in Abuja.

Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, AAC, in the 2023 mobilized many Nigerians from across the country to join the demonstration.

The protest was despite the order by Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, restraining the protesters from going near certain areas within the FCT, particularly, presidential villa, popularly referred to as Aso Rock.

During the protest, the police arrested and detained Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel; his Special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, and other protesters at the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Command CID.

READ ALSO: 

Journalism Clinic honours media elders for selfless service

LASHMA unveils online radio for awareness on health schemes

Protecting your family from disputes when you are gone

The post Police arrest Sowore, leader of ‘Free Nnamdi Kanu’ protest appeared first on Frontpageng.

The court also barred the protesters from anywhere close to the villa, National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square and Shehu Shagari Way, pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

Justice Mohammed Umar, on Friday, granted the ex-parte motion moved by the police lawyer, Wisdom Madaki, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, FRN, contrary to the earlier media reports in circulation.

The certified true copy of the enrolled order, signed by the court Registrar, Mr Kasim Muazu, and the presiding judge, Justice Umar, was made available on Saturday in Abuja.

The judge also made an order of abridgement of time “within which the respondents will respond to the application on notice to cause the ex-parte order be set aside on Monday, the 20th of October, 2025 at 9.00am.”

This was also contrary to some media reports that Justice Umar adjourned the matter until October 21 for the parties to appear in court.

“The respondents are hereby restrained in the interim from protesting in the following areas: Aso Rock Villa, or anywhere close to Villa, National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square and on Shehu Shagari way pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

READ ALSO: EXTRA: AI/Fact-checking: Curing ‘madness with madness’

“The court hereby abridged time within which the respondents will respond to the application on notice to cause this ex-parte order be set aside on Monday, the 20th of October, 2025 at 9.00am.

“The order of this court together with the motion on notice be served on the respondents today, Friday, the 17th day of October, 2025,” the judge ordered.

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until October 20 for hearing of the motion on notice.

“ISSUED AT ABUJA under the Hand of the Presiding Judge, Honourable Justice M. G. Umar, and the Seal of the Court this 17th day of October, 2025,” the enrolled order reads.

In the ex-parte motion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2202/2025, the police, on behalf of FRN, sued five respondents.

They are Omoyele Sowore, Sahara Reporters Ltd, Sahara Reporters’ Media Foundation, Take It Back Movement, (TIB), for the Transformation of Nigeria Or Any Form of Organisation or Any Other Person(s) Acting Either Express or Implied Instruction or Any Other Organisation or Group With the Like Intention; and Unknown Persons as 1st to 5th respondents respectively.

The motion dated and filed on October 16 sought one relief.

“An order of this honourable court restraining or ban protesters from protesting in the following areas, Aso Rock Villa or anywhere close to Villa, National Assembly, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square and Shehu Shagari Way.

“And for such further orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”

The affidavit in support of the ex-parte motion was deposed to by Bassey Ibithan, a police officer attached to Directorate of Legal Services, Force Headquarters, Abuja.

Mr Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, had planned to organise the protest for the release of Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB.

Sowore, the 2019 and 2023 presidential candidate of African Action Congress, ACC, had begun mobilisation for what he called a planned peaceful protest against the detention Kanu.

However, there have also been ongoing calls for political solution to Kanu’s trial who is facing alleged terrorism offence at the Federal High Court before Justice James Omotosho.

Source: NAN

The post #FreeNnamdiKanuNow: Court bars Sowore, others from Aso Rock, other areas appeared first on Frontpageng.

At the resumed hearing, the prosecuting counsel, Mr E. A. Inegbenoise, informed the court that the matter was listed for arraignment.

He, however, said that the defendants had filed a motion of preliminary objection to the charges, to which he had already responded.

Inegbenoise told the court that he was only able to serve his reply to the defendants in court on the day of the hearing, and that they would require time to respond.

Mr Tope Temokun, who appeared for Sowore and Sahara Reporters Ltd., affirmed that he had received their reply to the preliminary objection and that they would need time to reply.

READ ALSO: Basic Education Torchbearers Awards’ maiden edition holds Oct 21

He also told the court that both parties had agreed to return on November 20 to argue all pending applications.

Mr Marshal Abubakar, who represented Sahara Reporters Incorporated, announced his appearance “in protest,” but declined to provide further details when the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN, approached him after the court proceedings.

Mr Hamza Dantani also appeared in the matter on behalf of the Nigerian Bar Association, under the Citizens Liberties Committee.

Justice Emeka Nwite, presiding over the case, said that since counsel had agreed, the matter was adjourned until November 20 for the hearing of all pending applications.

The charge against Sowore and Sahara Reporters, filed earlier in August, relates to a series of reports published on Sahara Reporters about an alleged police promotion scandal and Sowore’s participation in protests by retired police officers demanding pension reforms.

Source: NAN

The post Alleged defamation: Court adjourns Sowore’s case appeared first on Frontpageng.

It seems the line between robust political speech and criminal incitement is not just thinning in Nigeria; it is being actively redrawn by the state in real-time, with each new lawsuit and social media post. We have become accustomed to the performative outrage of micro-celebrities and the fleeting scandals that define our digital discourse. The legal battle, which pits activist Omoyele Sowore against the Nigerian state is no joke for it goes beyond the ‘catching cruise’ format of social media content. It comes as no surprise at all, this being another one in a long, tortuous history of state-sponsored attempts to limit free speech in one form or another. This kind of frosty government-press relations dates back to the dark days of the Sedition Ordinance of 1909; includes the notorious Decree 4 of 1984 and unfortunately it seems, the Cybercrimes Act of 2024. So, once the Department of State Services (DSS) decided to initiate a five-count charge against Sowore, we have to consider it as another twist in an old tactic, one that suggests that the state remains in conflict with the very idea of a critical citizenry, twenty-six years after a return to democratic rule.

To view the Sowore case in isolation is to suffer from historical amnesia. We need only glance back through the annals of Nigerian governance to see a consistent thread. The colonial administration, often wrongly remembered for its “liberalism,” quickly moved to control the nascent press. The 1903 Newspaper Ordinance forced registration, the 1917 law demanded a hefty bond against “seditious” publications, and the 1909 Seditious Offences Ordinance specifically targeted criticism of the government. As scholars note, the press functioned only within whatever rights the colonial laws made possible. This appears to have set the tone for an unfortunate principle of the state being the one that can ultimately determine what is permissible as free speech.

Sadly, it seems, the illogical nature of that foundational principle survived the colonial rule, with succeeding administration appropriating it in some form or another as it fits their whims. The First Republic saw the press weaponised along ethnic and political lines, with regional governments and political parties establishing newspapers as mouthpieces to attack opponents. The outcome?  A structure of ethnic ownership where journalists were “not expected to enjoy much opportunity for individual self-expression” and “functioned within the narrow confines of official interests.”

But the true dark age for free speech arrived with the military. Regime after regime promulgated decrees designed to silence dissent: Aguiyi Ironsi’s Defamation Decree, Muhammadu Buhari’s infamous Decree 4, and the brutal enforcement under Buhari, Babangida, and Abacha are clear examples. Their goal was never to win in court but to deliver a chilling message. The proscription of newspapers, seizure of editions and imprisonment of journalists like Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor were all part of the message. That brutal message did not kill free speech but rather produced a collective reaction by the most vocal section of the media whose “guerrilla journalism” of the 1990s saw the likes of Tell, The News, and Tempo operating from hideouts, their hit-and-run tactics probably a perfect response to repressive administrations. They saw themselves not as neutral observers but as activists in a struggle to reclaim Nigeria, a mindset for which they were often criticised but which was forged in the fire of state persecution.

The return to democracy in 1999 promised a new dawn, but the tools of repression were merely refurbished, not discarded. The state’s strategy evolved from military decrees to sophisticated legal instruments like the Cybercrimes Act. Until the return to democratic rule, the print media and electronic media had been primary targets but now social media platforms became the focal point of attempts to moderate communications of the political type. If we take a critical look at the DSS’s court case against Sowore, it seems the intention is the same – limit dissenting voices as much as possible.

READ ALSO: Afriland Towers fire: Lagos govt begins probe

This pattern is not uniquely Nigerian; it is part of a global playbook where powerful figures weaponise the legal system to punish criticism. The threat by former U.S. President Donald Trump to sue the New York Times for $15 billion, while different in context, employs the same strategy: using the immense weight and cost of the judiciary to deliver a sobering message. The goal is processual punishment—to drain the target’s resources and create a spectre of legal retribution that hangs over every potential critic. Sowore’s case, with its multiple counts and invocation of both cyber and criminal law, fits this pattern perfectly, demonstrating how legal systems worldwide are being co-opted for political silencing.

The ghosts of Jackson, Ironsi, and some of the guerrilla journalists are watching to see which choice we make.

In the current case, the state argues that Sowore’s posts, which labelled President Bola Tinubu a “criminal,” are knowingly false and published with the intent to cause a “breakdown of law and order.” This charge hinges on a dangerously subjective logic: that the Nigerian public is an irrational mob, perpetually on the verge of violence, requiring protection from its own emotions by the wise hand of the security apparatus. It is a logic that presumes the state to be the sole arbiter of truth.

Sowore’s counter-suit, framing the state’s action as “unconstitutional censorship,” positions him in a long lineage of Nigerian resistance. He is not just defending his own tweets; he is channelling the spirit of John Payne Jackson, whose Lagos Weekly Record in the 1890s “always hung on the edge of sedition,” and the guerrilla journalists of the 90s who operated from hidden presses. The case against the DSS is anchored on Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, won through decades of resisting state-sponsored attempts to control political communication under the colonial and military rulers.

Notwithstanding, the issues are not as straightforward as a critical look at both sides of the argument shows complexities. For instance, even if the government’s case, is dressed in legalism, it is clearly fraught with dangerous subjectivity. How, if we may ask, is it possible to prove a claim about corruption, knowing that this is often shrouded in secrecy and open to different interpretation? The tactic makes it look like a fine attempt to weaponise the law, a hallmark of digital authoritarianism.

Yet, Sowore’s argument, while philosophically compelling, also brushes against the complex realities of absolute free speech. His choice of language sits in a grey zone between robust criticism and personal defamation. This is not to legitimise the state’s criminal charges, which are disproportionate and dangerous, but to acknowledge that the defence of free speech is most powerful when it acknowledges its own complexities. The appropriate arena for such a dispute should be civil libel law, not the Criminal Code wielded by secret police.

This case also forces a critical examination of the role of social media platforms, the new battleground in this old war. Sowore’s lawsuit rightly argues that Meta and X must not become “tools of repression.” However, this charge clashes with the messy reality of platform governance. These are global corporations, not democratic governments. Their “neutrality” is a myth; their decisions are calculations based on a maze of conflicting national laws, commercial interests, and political pressure. Their refusal to delete Sowore’s account is a positive outcome, but it is likely a business decision, not a principled stand for Nigerian democracy. To expect otherwise is to misunderstand their fundamental nature as profit-driven entities in the attention economy.

Outside the legal battle, there is a far more worrying thing. We have to ask; Is there a chance that we are seeing the onset of something more profound? We know that social media has the tendency to create eco-chambers and rewards outrage and emotionalism over reasoned debate. However, the far more fundamental change has to be the affective polarisation of political discourse, which shapes identities based on animosity and forces people to replace dialogue with diatribe.

There can be only one outcome in an environment like this: The deliberative, rigorous debate of issues that should be the foundation of a healthy democracy will be more difficult to achieve because it is crowded out by inflammatory language by government and activist alike. The DSS’s case against Sowore does nothing to ease the polarisation; it actually risks inflaming the tension by legitimising a cycle of action and reaction where the only casualty is truth itself.

If we take a look at our most recent history, what do we make of this high-stakes legal battle? The outcome will set a precedent. A victory for the state would embolden further censorship, signalling that any criticism of power can be criminalised under the nebulous guise of “national security” or “public order.” It would affirm that Nigeria’s democratic experiment remains fragile, perpetually vulnerable to the authoritarian instincts of its rulers.

The ideal resolution would not be a victory for unrestrained speech, but for a proportional and rights-based legal framework. This requires:

• An unequivocal judicial confirmation of Section 39 of the Constitution as the principal law of the land when it comes to free speech; which cannot be abridged in any way by any security outfit on a whim.
• An urgent re-evaluation and repeal of other pieces of legislation like those on cybercrime and criminal defamation that can be easily abused by those in power.
• An immediate national conversation around where to draw the line between free and harmful speech; the aim of which is to arrive at a consensus outside the influence of state coercion.

Clearly, it would be wrong to personalise this legal battle between Sowore and the DSS. It looks more like a proxy war for the soul of Nigeria’s digital future; a future caught between its own repressive history and a global wave of modernised authoritarianism. The question is whether our collective public sphere can accommodate open, if rigorous, deliberation, or a mediated space for predominantly state-approved thoughts. To think this is a choice between order and chaos is not only simplistic but plain dishonest.

This looks every inch like a choice between a democratic environment where people can think for themselves and an authoritarian environment that fears exactly that. The ghosts of Jackson, Ironsi, and some of the guerrilla journalists are watching to see which choice we make.

The post Digital dissent and state power: The Sowore case and the battle for Nigeria’s digital soul appeared first on Frontpageng.

The federal government, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, also joined Mata (Facebook) Incorp. and X Incorp. as defendants at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The criminal charge dated September 16, was filed by Mohammed Abubakar, Director of Public Prosecutions, Federal Ministry of Justice.

In the five-count charge, Sowore, the Publisher of Sahara Reporters, was alleged to have made a false claim against the person of the president by referring to him as “a criminal.”

The charge was filed few days after an earlier request by the Department of State Services (DSS) for the pulling down of the post on Facebook and X, the former Twitter, allegedly used by Sowore for the defamatory message.

READ ALSO: UNILAG alumni speak on 55th anniversary, importance of education

Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, AAC, in 2019 and 2023, in the charge is accused of contravening the provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.

Count one of the charge alleged that Sowore, on or about August 25, did use his official X handle page, @Yele Sowore, to send out a message/tweet.

The message is said to be, “THIS CRIMINAL @ OFFICIAL PBAT ACTUALLY WENT TO BRAZIL TO STATE THAT THERE IS NO MORE CORRUPTION UNDER HIS REGIME IN NIGERIA. WHAT AUDACITY TO LIE SHAMELESSLY!”

The message, which he knew to be false, was posted “for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order in the country, especially among individuals, who hold divergent views on the personality of the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (GCFR).”

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024, among other counts.

Source: NAN

The post FG sues Sowore, Facebook, X, for allegedly cyberbullying Tinubu appeared first on Frontpageng.

The group described the article recently published by SaharaReporters, which sought to scandalise female officers, especially ACP Bukola Kuti and DSP David Victoria, as “a shameless, sexist smear built on malicious gossip rather than credible journalism.”

The Convener of HerRights Watch, Onyinye Eze, in a statement, expressed dismay at the choice of Sowore to turn what was essentially an institutional issue of police promotions, which is even overwhelmingly skewed towards male officers, into a personal attack on a few women who had distinguished themselves in service just because he “seeks to impress his paymasters who have enlisted him to consistently attack the IGP.”

“Is Sowore suggesting that women have no right to serve in sensitive positions or be recognized for their exceptional work and contributions to society? Is he implying that a woman’s competence and progress can only come through illicit means? That line of thinking is not only deeply offensive but also regressive and dangerous,” Eze said.

“The criteria for accelerated promotion are well-established, for instance  any officer who wins Police Service Merit Award on two occasions automatically qualifies. The lady in question followed the same process because she merited it. Furthermore, contrary to the misleading claims in the article, she has been in service for well over 10 years. Can anyone reasonably claim that the same IGP has been responsible for all her promotions over the years when she has only worked with him for less than two years?

READ ALSO: How we arrested four over allegedly staged kidnapping -Police

“As further proof of Sowore’s malicious intent, the report falsely alleged that the promotion list was skewed in favour of officers from the South West. However, a thorough review of the list shows that officers from the North Central were, in fact, the top beneficiaries of the exercise.”

Eze pointed out that although the majority of officers promoted by the Police Service Commission in the referenced list were men, Sowore chose to build his entire narrative around a handful of women, dragging their names in the mud without presenting verifiable facts.

“This is not investigative journalism; this is misogyny wrapped in a failing attempt to undermine the leadership of the police by targeting women as easy scapegoats and collateral damage,” she said.

She further challenged the credibility of the so-called “sources” relied on by SaharaReporters, noting that the article dripped with innuendos, insinuations and stereotypes that demean the dignity of women in uniform, adding that “You cannot claim to be fighting for justice or accountability when your own report is a textbook example of character assassination and gender profiling.”

Eze, while expressing deep concern, noted that Sowore had long demonstrated troubling attitudes toward women.

“It is, unfortunately, not surprising that Sowore would take this path,” she said. “There have been consistent concerns about his treatment of women in both his private and public life. It seems the same disregard for respect and dignity in his personal relationships is now reflected in the way he engages through his platform.”

“Here is a man who calls himself a human rights activist, yet he cannot hide his hatred for women, especially those in positions of responsibility. His SaharaReporters platform is increasingly being used not to expose corruption, but for racketeering.”

Eze called on Nigerians to reject the attempt to turn women into scapegoats in institutional controversies, adding that if the promotions in the Nigeria Police Force are flawed, the process can be addressed without maligning hardworking and deserving women who are caught in the web.

She added that if male officers were promoted without merit, would Sowore insinuate they got there through sexual favours?

In any case, it is on record that the incumbent Inspector General of Police, IGP Kayode Egbetokun, has refused every attempt to encourage indiscriminate special accelerated promotion in spite of the humongous pressure from every quarter. Hence, he set up criteria, guidelines and a process for qualifying for a special promotion which was strictly adhered to on this matter.

She advised other journalists and media platforms to be responsible and gender-sensitive in their reporting, calling on media regulatory bodies, the Nigeria Police Force, Nigerian communication Commission and human rights institutions to investigate the defamatory content of the SaharaReporters article and protect women in public service from malicious attacks based on their gender.

“We cannot allow this kind of journalistic recklessness to go unchallenged. It breeds a hostile environment for women and reinforces the culture of impunity, where men can say and write anything against women without consequences. Enough is enough,” she declared.

The post Women’s rights group decries Sowore’s attack on female cops appeared first on Frontpageng.

The presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, ANC, in the 2023 election, Omoyele Sowore, made this known on Monday on his X handle.

He added that the case was adjourned to January 29, 2025.

His post on the handle reads: “The first hurdle was crossed. #DeleFarotimi was granted bail of N50 million surety in the like sum with someone with landed property. The case was adjourned to January 29, 2025.”

READ ALSO: Citizens must own the fight against corruption, By Tunde Akanni

Following his arrest by the police on criminal defamation, Farotimi was remanded in prison by the Ado-Ekiti magistrate court on Wednesday, December 7, 2024.

The alleged offence was said to have been committed against renowned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Afe Babalola, in his (Farotimi’s) book – “Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System.”

Babalola, who is also the founder of Afe Babalola University, said Farotimi, in the book, accused him of “corrupting the Supreme Court from ages past and had led it to commit the most egregious acts of evil and wanting injustice.”

The post Alleged defamation: Ekiti court grants Farotimi N50m bail appeared first on Frontpageng.

By TUNDE AKANNI and AMIRA OBI-OKOYE

Most credible English Language Dictionaries provide at least 10 synonyms for the word protest – object, disagree, oppose, complain, disapprove, declare, insist, affirm, avow, declare, grouse, holler, belly-ache. One Thesaurus, in fact, offers 106 synonyms and antonyms of the word “protest”.  Yet writers don’t often consider any of them good substitute for “protest”, because over the decades, the word has assumed a much deeper, complex and lethal meaning.

Palpably so, perhaps. The past decade or thereabouts, protests have become a dominant instrument of people and issue management across the local and international arena. The famous six-letter English noun (which doubles as a verb) has not only assumed new meanings, it has also grown in power and influence. How powerful a word can be!

Nigerians in particular now have an unprecedented appreciation of the phenomenon. When the raging protest was still in the offing with the commencement date announced, there were mixed feelings. Planners, including their lawyers, assured that it would be peaceful. The agitated government folks repeatedly alerted that hoodlums could take advantage of it.

Eventually, the truth of the fears manifested with several properties vandalized and looted in addition to lives lost. Indeed, such is the magnitude of the losses that some initial promoters of the protest now want it halted. But it is merely easier said.

Yet the protest, in our own reckoning as experts, was avoidable in the first place.  What else was left for the media to register on the consciousness of government functionaries? Not even in this age of buoying media abundance with increasing actualities can anyone accuse the media of under-reportage of visible signals.  So much more offered by informed comments and analyses could not have been more timeous either.

Interestingly, one of the promoters of the protest, Omoyele Sowore, barely parroted an old claim of the nation’s socio-economic situation which ironically has even accentuated over decades. Years back, foremost leader of Yoruba politics, Obafemi Awolowo, was reported to have said: “We have won the civil war. Yes, indeed. But to win the war for peace, we must recognize the real enemies… As far as I can understand, the aggressors against peace and stability in Nigeria are abject poverty, hunger, disease, squalor and ignorance.”  These have combined to now compel some fire-brigade interventions with no feasible sustainability promise.  It’s Nigeria’s hard and painful share of the mutating historic phenomenon.

About a decade ago, this famous word took the Arab world by storm. Now famously referred to as the Arab Spring, it was a wave of pro-democracy protest that began in 2010 with Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Tunisia, sparking the Jasmine Revolution. Similar movement sprang up in the Middle East and North Africa with significant uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria. The protests which were chaotic to say the least, highlighted the people’s desire for political freedom. But it snowballed into a protracted unintended instability and economic hardships.

READ ALSO: EXTRA: Chisora: Time to say goodbye, By Kunle Awosiyan

Just this July 2024, “protest” rode virulently in the manner of a hurricane through Bangladesh and the United Kingdom. In Bangladesh where it finally tragically culminated in a military take-over, demonstrators trooped out against discontent over government job quotas reserved exclusively for families of veterans from the 1971 independence war, and turned into demands for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s resignation.

The truth: Peace is always negotiable when the right steps are taken at the right time.

The government returned with fire, felling no fewer than 250 lives. The military, led by General Waker-Uz-Zaman, announced Hasina’s resignation and set up an Interim Government to address the demands of the protesters.

Though with fewer deaths, the UK protests are not any less unnerving.  Since 2011 there have been pockets of protests across the country but last week it became disturbingly violent. The immediate explanation of the mob was the alleged police complicity resulting from the shooting of a Briton, Mark Duggan allegedly by an immigrant. The shooter turned out to be a British with Rwandan mother but it did not matter. The protests highlighted system issues with British society and strained community-police relations.

Few months earlier, in Kenya, protests were ignited by opposition to the Finance Bill 2024. It was tagged “#RejectFinanceBill2024”. It quickly snowballed into a cross-divisional and multi-dimensional flame of riots against the leadership of President William Ruto. The President was forced to dissolve his cabinet but the crises have not fully abated.

Now, “protest” has landed in Nigeria, after weeks of hovering in the cloud as deadly thunderstorms do, leaving its trademark – devastations, trails of blood, deaths and empty canisters beclouded with police tear gas.

Even the most virulent leader shivers at the threat of a protest, because when it starts no one knows what will follow and how it will end. Although protest as an activity or action is as old as humanity, its encroachment into the international political arena deserves a more critical look.

All of the examples of escalated protests that we just referred to except that of Nigeria (Arab Springs, Kenya protests, the “coup” in Bangladesh and the Britain) have diplomatic or international undertones. That is the reason the Tinubu Administration in Nigeria should not take the current wave of “#Endbadgovernance” with kid’s gloves especially with brazen flaunting of Russian flag in Kano, Kaduna and some other parts of northern Nigeria.

But public discontents can always be nipped in the bud by listening leaders. They need to make better and more sincere and effective use of the knowledge of the concept of multi-track diplomacy. The concept (or theory if you like) has grown in acceptance among scholars as a conflict resolution tool. Put simply, it says that a menu of nine factors, when properly blended and applied proactively would bring about peace in the international arena. These are: Government (executive, legislature an judiciary); Professional conflict resolution (especially by non-state actors); Business (how economic activities could address disparity and poverty); Private citizens (individuals and groups); Research, training and education; Peace activism; Religion; Funding and the Media (and public relations).

Clearly, Abuja did not make up its mind to meet with the leaders of the relevant segments of the society in good time, just that it made huge shows of the meetings.  Were the meetings also sufficiently frank, not merely cosmetic? Were there implementable plans to step down the messages duly suffused with sincerity and completely bereft of political arrogance? How mindful were such engagements of the peculiarities of the various regions with varying bents of insecurity?  No one, for instance, could have imagined the brazen and wanton destructions of private and public properties carried out in Kano including attacks on facilities that serve the common man daily like traffic lights. What worse level can we further descend into?

The truth: Peace is always negotiable when the right steps are taken at the right time.

*Tunde Akanni, PhD and Amira Obi-Okoye, a doctoral student, are Media and Conflict scholars based at the Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, FCMS, LASU.

The post Minding the mutating protest appeared first on Frontpageng.