 |
| Omoyele Sowore |
The African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate and longtime human rights activist, has sharply criticized President Bola Tinubu’s government for what he describes as the reduction of the Department of State Services (DSS) into a tool for silencing dissent.
His comments came in response to the arrest and arraignment of Mubarak Abdullahi, also known as Sardaunan Samari, an avowed supporter of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, over the online circulation of a document purportedly written by Tinubu.
The case, which has drawn attention amid Nigeria’s charged political climate ahead of the 2027 elections, highlights ongoing tensions between state security agencies and online political expression. Abdullahi was arrested on September 28, 2026, after sharing the document on his Facebook page with the caption “ATIKU IS COMING.”
Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga publicly detailed the development, identifying Abdullahi as a supporter of Atiku, who is widely associated with the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as a potential presidential contender.
According to Onanuga, Abdullahi admitted to investigators that he shared the document and apologized. The apology proved insufficient. He was arraigned before Chief Magistrate Court No. 10 in Kabala Doki, Kaduna, and ordered remanded at the Nigerian Correctional Centre in Kaduna.
The DSS has filed a three-count charge involving cybercrime and defamation at the Federal High Court in Kaduna, with a formal arraignment date yet to be fixed. Onanuga framed the action as evidence of the DSS’s capacity to track and address the circulation of misleading information online.
Details of the disputed document vary slightly across reports. Some accounts describe it as a letter purportedly from Tinubu addressed to the President of the United States. Others, including earlier coverage, link it to a forged or AI-generated letter dated around September 19, 2026, addressed to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. That version sought “goodwill and diplomatic engagement” regarding a past drug-related case in Chicago and appealed for intervention, including with then-relevant U.S. figures. Sahara Reporters and other outlets noted indicators that the document appeared AI-generated, with forged letterhead and signature elements. Abdullahi has been described in some reports as a criminology student at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, though the primary public framing centers on his political support for Atiku.
Sowore’s reaction on X was characteristically blunt. Quoting Onanuga’s announcement, he wrote: “How low will you go, @OfficialAPCNg and the @officialABAT regime? How on earth do you reduce a national security agency like the @OfficialDSSNG to a mere vacuum cleaner, deployed to sweep up dissenting voices in your inordinate ambition to subdue every citizen simply because you are afraid to face the Nigerian people and account for your disastrous reign? Arresting a hapless citizen for posting a document online, sad! Shame on all of you! A day of reckoning is coming, when you too will be held accountable for your actions.
That day is coming sooner than you think. Very soon!” The activist’s criticism carries added weight because of his own parallel legal battle with the same agency. Sowore is currently facing DSS prosecution over social media posts in which he referred to Tinubu as a “criminal,” particularly in the context of statements the president made during a trip to Brazil about corruption levels in Nigeria.
The DSS has pursued the matter under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, arguing the posts threatened national security and generated public tension.
Sowore has repeatedly framed the case as an assault on free speech, refused demands to delete the posts, and pursued countersuits, including a ₦5 billion fundamental rights claim against the DSS Director-General and others over alleged assault and abduction by operatives at a Federal High Court in Abuja in June 2026. He has suffered multiple procedural setbacks in the case.
This latest episode fits into a broader pattern visible in Nigeria’s digital public sphere. Successive governments have invoked cybercrime and related laws to address online content, but critics argue the application often disproportionately targets political opponents, activists, and ordinary users sharing critical or satirical material.
The Tinubu administration has faced persistent questions over economic hardship, insecurity, and governance performance; opposition figures, including Atiku and Sowore himself, have used platforms like X and Facebook to amplify those critiques. Fake or manipulated documents have long circulated in Nigerian politics, sometimes as genuine disinformation and sometimes as vehicles for legitimate skepticism about official narratives.
Distinguishing between harmful forgery and protected political speech remains contested terrain, especially when security agencies become the primary responders.
The choice of the DSS—Nigeria’s primary internal security and intelligence service—rather than the police or specialized cybercrime units for a Facebook post has fueled perceptions that the response prioritizes political control over proportionate law enforcement.
Abdullahi’s reported apology and the relatively low-level nature of simply sharing a document (as opposed to creating or widely amplifying a sophisticated forgery with clear intent to defraud or incite violence) make the remand and multi-count charges appear, to Sowore and like-minded observers, as exemplary punishment intended to deter others.
Supporters of the government’s approach counter that unchecked circulation of fabricated official correspondence, particularly on sensitive historical allegations such as the long-circulating claims about Tinubu’s past in the United States, can erode public trust and international standing, and that the law must be applied regardless of the sharer’s political affiliation.
As Nigeria moves closer to another electoral cycle, cases like Abdullahi’s and Sowore’s illustrate the friction between an assertive security apparatus and a vibrant, often raucous online opposition culture. The Cybercrimes Act and related statutes provide legal tools; how they are selected, prioritized, and publicly justified will continue to shape debates about democratic space.
Sowore’s warning of a “day of reckoning” reflects the polarized rhetoric of the moment, but the underlying questions—about the proper role of the DSS, the boundaries of online political expression, and the accountability of both state actors and private citizens—are likely to persist well beyond any single court appearance in Kaduna.
The Federal High Court proceedings against Abdullahi remain pending. No independent verification of the exact content of the shared document or a full official charge sheet has been widely published beyond the accounts provided by government spokespeople and secondary reporting.
The outcome will test whether the process is viewed as a straightforward application of the law against misinformation or as further evidence of selective enforcement against political critics.
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers Global, News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Politics and Technology.
Post a Comment