Connect with us

News

Was government’s hyper reaction to Sowore’s protest necessary?

Published

on

When Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters and activist, announced a protest in Abuja for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, few expected it to draw such a heavy-handed response from the Nigerian government. Yet, on October 20, when the protest was scheduled to be held, the police descended on the protesters as if they were enemies of the state. The sight of armed officers arresting citizens who were simply exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest sent a disturbing message: Nigeria’s space for free expression is shrinking fast.

That this happened under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s watch makes the event even more disappointing. For decades, Tinubu stood as one of Nigeria’s most vocal opposition figures. He fought military dictatorship, demanded democracy, and benefited immensely from the freedoms that civil society and the media struggled to secure. Even as a governor, he opposed the presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo and gained the sympathy of most Nigerians. As an opposition leader of the APC, he led protests against the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan. To see his government now turning against those who dare to speak or march peacefully is both ironic and painful.

The use of excessive force against peaceful protesters is not new in Nigeria. From the #EndSARS movement in 2020 to other smaller demonstrations, the APC administration has increasingly treated dissent as a crime. In the case of Muhammadu Buhari, his background as a military person and a dictator made it easier to understand. But for Tinubu, who has never been a military person and was a vocal opposition leader for decades, it has been disappointing.

What stands out in this case is the hypocrisy of those in power. The ruling All Progressives Congress rode to power on promises of freedom, reform, and respect for citizens’ rights. Many of its leaders, like Tinubu, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, and Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, participated in protests and spoke passionately about the importance of free speech and accountability.

See also  16 escape death in Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway crash

Now, when ordinary citizens use the same democratic tools, the state responds with intimidation and arrests. This is not the democracy Nigerians were promised.

Every democracy recognises the right to protest as a key pillar of freedom. It is not a favour granted by the government. In Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly are clearly protected. Citizens do not need permission to voice their concerns.

I don’t need to agree with Sowore’s views. But it is his right to organise a protest. It is the right of Nigerians to choose whether to join the protest or not. The duty of the police is to be present to monitor the protest and ensure that hoodlums don’t hijack it.

When people like Sowore and others gather to demand justice or call attention to issues, they are not committing a crime. They are simply practising democracy by holding leaders accountable. A confident government that truly believes in its legitimacy should not feel uncomfortable with peaceful protests. Instead, it should listen, engage and respond with maturity. Using threats and excessive force against unarmed, peaceful protesters is the hallmark of a dictatorship. If a government spokesperson had addressed the protesters, that would have taken the wind out of the sails of the protest.

Tinubu’s rise to prominence came through his activism and opposition to military rule. As a member of the National Democratic Coalition in the 1990s, he fought for democracy and free expression. Those were noble struggles, and history rightly remembers Tinubu and his colleagues as heroes of democracy.

But history also judges what leaders do when they gain power. The measure of a true democrat is not how loudly he demands freedom when he is out of power, but how much of that freedom he protects when he is in power. By that measure, the Tinubu government’s record so far is worrying.

It is noteworthy that Sowore’s protest went beyond Nnamdi Kanu; it also highlighted the government’s double standards. On one hand, the government negotiates with bandits who come to meetings with guns and rocket launchers; on the other hand, the government arrests and detains those who protest with no weapons.

See also  Dangote now supplies 92% of petrol as FG pauses imports

Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has been detained since June 2021. He is facing trial on charges of treasonable felony and terrorism-related offences. Many Nigerians disagree with his methods and his vitriol. However, they believe he deserves a fair and speedy trial. Keeping him in detention indefinitely and refusing to obey court orders on him only deepens resentment and fuels division.

Sowore has positioned himself as a symbol of resistance against government excesses. The government has played into his hands by displaying intolerance. He has been arrested multiple times since 2019 for leading protests, yet he continues to speak up. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, his courage in the face of repression reflects the stubborn spirit of Nigerians who refuse to be silenced.

A government that hates dissent or crushes it loses moral authority. It portrays the government as insecure. The strength of any democracy does not lie in how it treats those who agree with it, but in how it treats those who disagree. When the government sees every critic as an enemy, it creates fear rather than loyalty.

Nigeria is already facing enormous challenges, which include economic hardship, insecurity, youth unemployment, and declining trust in public institutions. Silencing dissent will not solve these problems. On the contrary, it will worsen them. Citizens who cannot speak will find other, less peaceful ways to express their anger.

When the APC came to power in 2015, many Nigerians hoped for a new era of accountability and freedom. The party’s leaders criticised the previous government for corruption and intolerance. Yet, after over a decade in power, the APC has become worse than what it once opposed.

See also  177 abducted Kaduna worshippers, bandits sighted in transit — Village Head

Under Tinubu, there was hope for renewal, given his history as a pro-democracy activist. But the early signs suggest a continuation of the same authoritarian tendencies that marked the Buhari years. The clampdown on protests, the arrests of journalists, the disregard for the Constitution in the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, and the rising fear among citizens to speak freely point to a democracy that is losing its soul. Today, the separation of powers that should exist among the legislature, executive and judiciary has vanished.

Although President Tinubu seems focused on securing a second term by all means necessary, there is still time to change his attitude toward dissent. Nigerians are easy to satisfy. Saying the right words and carrying out the right actions will easily see millions of opponents move to his side. Umaru Yar’Adua achieved it by acknowledging that the election that brought him in was faulty and showing the people that he was on their side. Tinubu can start by instructing security agencies to respect the rights of protesters and journalists. It is also crucial to release those detained for peaceful demonstrations and allow citizens to express themselves without fear.

Nigeria suffered for decades under a dictatorship. In 1999, it celebrated its return to civilian rule. This is not the type of democracy Nigerians fought for. Nigeria deserves a government that listens and not one that fears its people. True democracy is not about silencing the crowd and pressuring every opponent to become a supporter. It is about hearing the cry of the people and taking steps to stop the cry.

X: @BrandAzuka

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Reps order IG to produce fake, PFIPC agency DG Adeyemi within 48 hours

Published

on

The House of Representatives Committee investigating the operations of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council has directed the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, to produce the self-acclaimed Director-General of the organisation, Adeyemi Adeniyi, before it on Wednesday.

The directive was issued on Monday during the resumed investigative hearing at the National Assembly Complex, Abuja.

Representing the IG, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bashir Abdullahi, appeared before the committee and was instructed to ensure Adeyemi’s appearance by noon on Wednesday to assist lawmakers in their ongoing investigation into the activities of the organisation.

The committee is probing the circumstances under which the PFIPC, despite not being legally established, allegedly secured office accommodation in Phase III of the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and received a budgetary allocation of ₦1.32bn in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

The directive followed the Nigeria Police Force’s confirmation of key aspects of its criminal investigation, including petitions from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President alleging that Adeyemi fraudulently presented himself as the Director-General of both the Presidential Economic Advisory Council and the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.

The Committee Chairman, Yusuf Gagdi, said Adeyemi’s appearance had become imperative given the seriousness of the allegations and the institutions implicated in the matter.

“This committee clearly needs the suspected DG to appear before this committee. People’s names are involved. People’s integrity are involved. Institutional names are involved. Institutional integrity is involved.

“It is not an option now. We will need him here to confirm some documents to us in such a way that will not undermine our investigation to enable us to submit our report on time,” Gagdi said.

See also  Presidency backs EFCC on Atiku’s son-in-law hunt

The committee subsequently directed its clerk to formally communicate its resolution to the Inspector-General of Police.

“The committee hereby resolves that the Inspector-General of Police of the Federal Republic of Nigeria do kindly present Mr Adeyemi on Wednesday by 12 noon. That is the ruling of the committee,” Gagdi declared.

Earlier, ACP Abdullahi informed lawmakers that although investigations were ongoing, the police had already filed an eight-count charge against Adeyemi before the Federal High Court.

“The Nigerian Police Force investigated part of this case late last year and filed eight-count charges before a Federal High Court. The case is ongoing,” he said.

He disclosed that the suspect had been arrested and arraigned, but cautioned against making public disclosures that could prejudice the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

“We don’t want to say things that are under investigation. It is definitely going to prejudice the ongoing investigation and make people have opinions that may prejudge the outcome of an investigation or judicial decision,” Abdullahi stated.

Despite the police’s reservations, the committee sought confirmation of documentary evidence already in its possession.

The police confirmed that on October 17, 2025, the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President petitioned security agencies over allegations against Adeyemi, prompting investigations that culminated in criminal charges bordering on conspiracy and fraud.

Investigators also confirmed receiving another petition alleging that Adeyemi falsely presented himself as the Director-General of both the Presidential Economic Advisory Council and the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.

According to the police, the petition alleged that Adeyemi used the purported office to obtain accommodation within the Federal Secretariat, sought approval to recruit about 300 personnel, attempted to secure a $1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act for the non-existent agency, and planned to organise a World Investment Summit under the platform of the purported council.

See also  16 escape death in Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway crash

One of the highlights of the hearing came when the committee compared signatures on documents allegedly issued from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President with signatures on authentic official correspondence obtained by the police.

When asked whether the signatures matched, the police witness responded unequivocally,”They are not the same.”

The committee said the discrepancy reinforced concerns that official State House documents may have been forged.

Gagdi further asked, “So, it is not only a letter that was suspected to be forged? We are dealing with documents that include what is said to be a forged Act of the National Assembly in an attempt to establish a fake agency,” he added.

Gagdi disclosed that investigators had identified about 29 allegedly forged documents, including purported approvals from the State House, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Ministry of Finance and several other government institutions.

According to him, representatives of many of the affected agencies had already appeared before the committee and disowned the documents attributed to their offices.

Gagdi, however, stressed that the committee had deliberately avoided compelling the police to disclose information that could compromise ongoing criminal investigations.

“We are avoiding a situation whereby they will be pushed to make statements that will undermine their ongoing investigation,” he added.

He assured that the House investigation would continue independently and that its final report could recommend further action by relevant security agencies.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

See also  Lady sues Peller, demands N395m for filming her without consent

Continue Reading

News

Forged state house letter used to create fake PFIPC agency, Acct-General reveals

Published

on

The House of Representatives’ investigation into the operations of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council took a dramatic turn on Monday after the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, revealed that a forged State House letter was used to obtain official government recognition for the ‘fake’ agency.

Appearing before the House Ad Hoc Committee probing the circumstances surrounding the establishment and operations of the council, Ogunjimi disclosed that the Office of the Accountant-General acted on what appeared to be an authentic correspondence from the presidency requesting the creation of an administrative code for the PIFPC, only for investigations to later establish that the letter did not originate from the State House.

The revelation is the latest in a series of disclosures before the committee, which is investigating how a non-existent presidential agency allegedly secured office accommodation in the Federal Secretariat, sought budgetary allocations, recruited personnel and obtained official government recognition through what investigators believe were forged documents.

Presenting his report, Ogunjimi said the Office of the Accountant-General first interacted with the purported council in November 2024.

According to him, “a letter dated November 7, 2024, bearing a State House reference number, requested the creation of an administrative code for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council to facilitate budgeting, accounting and financial reporting.”

He explained that, in line with established procedures, “the Office of the Accountant-General processed the request, created the administrative code and communicated its approval to the State House,” with a copy sent to the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation.

See also  FG tightens border control due to fresh Ebola Outbreak

Following that approval, the office received additional requests from the purported council, including applications for self-accounting status, deployment of personnel, opening of Treasury Single Account and domiciliary accounts, as well as funding approvals.

Ogunjimi, however, stressed that although some administrative processes were carried out, no public funds were ever released to the council.

“It is important to note that no funds were released under salaries, overhead, capital, or any form of intervention or special allocation to the council,” Ogunjimi told the committee.

He further disclosed that while the council requested an establishment grant of ₦27.4bn, the application was rejected because there was no budgetary provision for such expenditure.

The Accountant-General also explained that although the Central Bank of Nigeria opened two domiciliary accounts for the organisation to receive inflows, the accounts never became operational because the council failed to satisfy the regulatory conditions required for their activation.

Lawmakers expressed concern over how the purported agency was able to navigate several layers of government bureaucracy without raising suspicion.

Responding, Ogunjimi made what committee members described as one of the most significant revelations of the hearing.

“The letter that was received by the Treasury was respectfully addressed as coming from the State House. That letter was never issued by the State House”, he said

The disclosure prompted members of the committee to conclude that a “hijacked” State House letter had allegedly been used to mislead government institutions into processing official requests for an agency that had no legal existence.

The committee also questioned how civil servants originally posted to the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser to the President eventually became attached to the purported council without the knowledge of the Office of the Accountant-General.

See also  FG to fix skills gap, connect 20 million youths to jobs

Ogunjimi explained that two officers deployed to the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser in 2010 and 2013 remained in the office after it was allegedly taken over by the new council, but no formal communication was sent to the treasury notifying it of any change.

“It was never assumed or written to us that those two officers were being taken over. The staff also never reported to the office to say that another council had taken over the office and the name had changed. As far as I was concerned, we were dealing with a new agency, not the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser,” he said.

He further disclosed that when the purported council later requested the deployment of five additional officers, the treasury approved only three after determining that the organisation’s size did not justify the number requested.

“It was when all this matter came to light that I got to know that two of our staff were actually working or being absorbed by the agency. We never knew. We believed, based on the records available to us, that those officers were still with the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser,” he added.

The ongoing House investigation centres on allegations that forged presidential approvals, counterfeit State House correspondence, fake Acts of the National Assembly and other falsified government documents were used to create and operate the purported Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.

The committee has already heard evidence from the Nigeria Police Force, which confirmed that criminal charges bordering on conspiracy and fraud have been filed against the prime suspect, Adeyemi Adeniyi, at the Federal High Court.

See also  Dangote now supplies 92% of petrol as FG pauses imports

At its sitting on Monday, the committee also directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi before lawmakers by noon on Wednesday to answer questions relating to the alleged forgery of official government documents and the operations of the purported presidential agency.

The committee is expected to conclude its investigation with recommendations on possible administrative, legislative and criminal actions against those found culpable.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

See full list of African countries that do not need proof of funds for UK’s student visa

Published

on

The United Kingdom on Monday updated its financial requirements for applicants seeking Student and Child Student visas, retaining stricter evidence rules while exempting nationals of only three African countries from submitting proof of funds at the point of application.

The updated guidance, published by the UK government on its website, listed Botswana, Mauritius and Tunisia as the only African countries whose nationals will not be required to provide financial evidence upfront unless requested during the visa decision-making process.

Other countries on the exemption list include Australia, Canada, China, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others.

Despite the exemption, the UK clarified that applicants from the listed countries must still meet all financial requirements and could be asked to provide evidence during the application process.

The guidance stated, “You must meet the financial requirements for this route when you apply; however, you may not need to submit evidence upfront as part of your application. In these circumstances, the decision maker may still request the evidence from you during the application process to prove you meet the financial requirements.”

The development means applicants from major African source countries for UK education, including Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Egypt and others not listed, will continue to submit financial documents as part of their visa applications.

Under the revised rules, applicants for a Student visa must demonstrate they have sufficient funds to cover tuition fees as stated on their Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies and living expenses.

See also  UN demands probe after 17 protesters killed in Nepal

Students studying outside London are required to show they have £1,171 for each month of their course, up to a maximum of nine months, while those studying in London must show £1,529 per month for the same period.

Applicants travelling with dependants must also show additional funds. Those studying outside London must have £680 per month for each dependant, while applicants studying in London must show £845 monthly for each dependant, both for up to nine months.

For Child Student visa applicants, the required maintenance funds vary depending on their living arrangements, including boarding school accommodation, foster care, residence with parents or legal guardians, or independent living for eligible 16 and 17-year-olds.

The UK government also outlined acceptable sources of funds, including government-backed student loans, official financial sponsorship, personal savings and money belonging to parents or eligible partners.

However, it said applicants cannot rely on overdrafts, cryptocurrency holdings, stocks and shares, pensions or funds kept in unregulated financial institutions.

The guidance further requires applicants using personal or family funds to show that the required amount has been held for at least 28 consecutive days before the application, with financial evidence dated no more than 31 days before submission.

The UK also maintained exemptions from providing financial evidence for certain categories of applicants, including those applying to extend their stay after spending at least 12 months in the country on a valid visa, Student Union Sabbatical Officers, doctors and dentists in training, and applicants whose nationality qualifies for the reduced documentary requirement.

The latest update comes as the UK continues to tighten oversight of its international student visa system while maintaining financial eligibility requirements for prospective students seeking to study in the country.

See also  16 escape death in Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway crash

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

Trending