That avoidable protest

The right to peaceful protest is one of the cornerstones of any democracy. Nigerians, like citizens elsewhere, are constitutionally entitled to express their grievances over government actions or policies through lawful assembly. It is an important civic instrument that holds leaders accountable and gives voice to public sentiment. Yet, this right, fundamental as it is, […]

The right to peaceful protest is one of the cornerstones of any democracy. Nigerians, like citizens elsewhere, are constitutionally entitled to express their grievances over government actions or policies through lawful assembly. It is an important civic instrument that holds leaders accountable and gives voice to public sentiment. Yet, this right, fundamental as it is, does not stand outside the law. It must be exercised responsibly and within the ambit of the law as set out by the courts and relevant authorities.

The recent protest in Abuja calling for the release of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, illustrates a worrying disregard for these limits. The demonstration, which paralysed commercial activities in parts of the Federal Capital Territory and forced many offices to shut down, went ahead despite a valid court order restricting the protesters to specific areas. By violating that order, the organisers not only disrupted the daily lives of residents but also undermined the very rule of law they claim to defend.

It is self-defeating to demand justice through means that contravene judicial directives. To attempt to force the hand of the government in an ongoing criminal case through street pressure is not only counterproductive but also inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers. The courts, not public demonstrations, are the proper arena for seeking legal redress. When citizens insist that government must obey court orders, they too must model such obedience. Selective respect for the law weakens the integrity of civic action and erodes confidence in democratic processes.

That said, the government cannot be absolved of blame for the situation that culminated in the protest. The protracted handling of Kanu’s trial has done little to inspire faith in the justice system. Repeated adjournments, perceived foot-dragging, and the lingering uncertainty over his case have created fertile ground for frustration and agitation. This is not the first time delays in politically sensitive trials have led to avoidable unrest. Justice delayed, as the saying goes, is justice denied, both to the accused and to the state seeking to uphold the law.

The government’s earlier disregard of court orders granting Kanu bail also weakened its moral standing. When authorities selectively obey judicial rulings, they set dangerous precedents that embolden others to flout the same system. It is, therefore, unsurprising that supporters of Kanu now feel justified in adopting confrontational and needless delay tactics. Had the state prosecuted the case diligently, within a reasonable time, and in full compliance with previous court orders, there would likely have been no pretext for this avoidable protest.

The lesson is clear. Diligent and transparent prosecution must be the norm. The justice system must function efficiently and be seen to do so. When criminal cases linger indefinitely or become entangled in political calculations, the outcome is predictable. Public impatience, social tension, and sometimes chaos follow. What happened in Abuja could, and should, have been prevented through timely judicial action.

It is also worth noting that when security and legal matters are politicised, such outcomes become even more probable. The handling of Kanu’s case has too often been coloured by political undertones rather than legal clarity. This is regrettable. Nigeria must learn to separate politics from security and justice administration. A useful comparison can be drawn from how the Finnish authorities addressed the case involving Simon Ekpa, a fellow separatist agitator like Kanu. The Finnish government allowed the legal process to take its course swiftly and dispassionately, without political interference or sensationalism. That professionalism helped prevent a potentially volatile situation from spilling into the streets.

For Nigeria, the path forward is to depoliticise national security and legal issues. Treating matters of justice as tools for political bargaining serves no one and damages institutional credibility. The law must apply uniformly, whether to protesters, public officials, or defendants in high-profile cases. Only through consistent adherence to the rule of law can the government and citizens alike claim the moral authority to demand obedience to it.

We must also stress the responsibility of security agencies in managing such situations. Reports that the police used live ammunition to disperse protesters in Abuja are deeply troubling. Such actions are unacceptable in a democracy. Law enforcement personnel must be properly trained and retrained in modern crowd control and engagement techniques. The use of excessive force only escalates tensions and risks unnecessary casualties. Security operations should always prioritise restraint and respect for human rights.

Ultimately, this episode is a sobering reminder that obedience to the law is not optional for any party, citizen or state. The chaos that engulfed Abuja and parts of Lagos and the South East over the Nnamdi Kanu matter was both avoidable and unnecessary. If the government had acted with diligence and transparency, and if the protesters had respected the court’s restrictions, such a disruption would not have occurred.

Going forward, Daily Trust urges all sides to recommit to the rule of law. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done swiftly, fairly, and without prejudice. That is the only path to lasting peace and public confidence in Nigeria’s democracy.