Courtroom to Cell: How the Arrest of Omoyele Sowore Marks a Dangerous Turn for Dissent in Nigeria
In a moment both shocking and sadly unsurprising, human rights activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore has been arrested by the Nigeria Police Force inside the premises of the Federal High Court, Abuja. At the same time, numerous other citizens who peacefully exercised their right to protest across Nigeria have also been detained. The message from those in power is clear: dissent in 2025 may no longer be tolerated — even when it is peaceful, legal and constitutional.
The Facts of the Case
According to multiple verified online sources, the police moved in on Wednesday/Thursday, 23 October 2025, apprehending Sowore just after he left the Federal High Court in Abuja. The Nigeria Police Force publicly confirmed the action, stating that Sowore was arrested for allegedly leading a protest into a “restricted area” in Abuja during the demonstration demanding the release of Nnamdi Kanu.
In a press briefing, the Force’s Public Relations Officer, Benjamin Hundeyin, explained that because 13 other persons had been arrested and gave statements implicating Sowore as the leader of that protest, it would be unfair to prosecute others and leave him free. “If we charge some people and leave the person who led them into the restricted area, that would not be fair,” he said.
The location of the arrest—inside a court complex—added another dimension of alarm for many rights observers. The fact that a prominent activist was arrested within the judicial precinct raises serious questions about the separation of powers, judicial independence and the treatment of dissenters.
A Deeper Reading: Why This Matters
1. Symbolic assault on democracy
Arresting an activist such as Sowore inside a courtroom sends a potent message: not only is the government willing to target dissent, but it may also view the judiciary and protest as battlegrounds rather than safeguards. That the protest in question sought the release of the IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu—whose case is highly politicised—further intensifies concerns.
2. Historical irony and disappointment
There is profound irony in this moment. Many of those now in power once rode the wave of protest, grassroots mobilisation and activism to gain prominence. Yet here we are: decades after the formal end of military rule in Nigeria, we are witnessing a government that appears to penalise peaceful protest. For those who believed that Nigeria’s democratic transition would usher in respect for dissent and civic participation, this is a bitter pill.
3. The legality of protest
Protest is not a crime—it is enshrined in Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution (1999), which guarantees freedom of assembly and movement. To treat legitimate dissent as though it were criminal activity drifts dangerously close to authoritarianism. At a time when global attention is on democratic backsliding, every action against peaceful protesters deepens Nigeria’s credibility challenge.
4. Power-dynamics and accountability
The justification given by the police—that it would be unfair to prosecute others without prosecuting the leader—might have a procedural veneer, but the optics are problematic. It raises issues around whether dissent is being criminalised selectively, and whether state security forces are being used to chill activism rather than protect rights.
What This Means for Nigerians and the World
For citizens across Nigeria, the chilling effect is immediate: if an outspoken, high-profile activist like Sowore can be arrested inside a courtroom, what does that mean for ordinary protesters, students, labour groups, or social media commentators? For the world, this development adds to concerns that Nigeria—once seen as a democratic standard-bearer in Africa—is sliding toward illiberal governance.
It also raises serious questions for civil society, media, and the legal profession: Will lawyers be able to represent protesters without fear? Will courts remain spaces of justice or become adjuncts to political control?
My Reaction: Shocked — But Not Surprised
I am shocked. The image of a human rights defender being arrested in the confines of a court is deeply disturbing. Shocked that in 2025, decades after we supposedly triumphed over military rule, our government still treats dissent as though it were a crime.
I am disappointed. Many of today’s leaders once thrived on the very protests that they now appear to suppress. To see their government whip out the same heavy-handed tactics once reserved for dictatorship is a profound let-down.
I am not surprised. Because for all the rhetoric of reform and democratic renewal, actions speak louder than words. The government of Bola Tinubu continues to show Nigerians who it is and what it intends to be—if allowed unchecked.
My Demands Based on Principle & Law
The immediate and unconditional release of Omoyele Sowore and all citizens arrested in the course of peaceful protest.
A commitment by the government to respect the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and protest, and to immediately halt any harassment of dissenting voices.
Assurance that the judiciary remains autonomous, that courts are safe for citizens and activists alike, and that the arrest of activists inside court premises becomes a thing of the past.
A transparent investigation into why the arrest was necessary, whether due process was followed, and how the right to dissent is to be protected going forward.
Democracy and tyranny cannot coexist. If the government treats dissent as a crime, the fundamental contract between state and citizen is broken. The arrest of Omoyele Sowore, the detentions of peaceful protesters, and the chilling effect this sends to civil society all mark a watershed moment for Nigeria’s democratic trajectory.
In confronting this challenge, Nigerians and allies abroad must remain vigilant. The right to protest is not optional. It is not a favour. It is a constitutional guarantee—and a moral imperative.
Today, the question is not just whether the government can silence dissent, but whether we will allow it. And if we do, we will have failed ourselves, failed our predecessors, and undermined the future of our democracy.
0 Comments