The Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has firmly defended its decision to demand detailed information about the leaders and organizers of the #EndBadGovernance nationwide protest, asserting that such a request is in accordance with the Nigerian constitution. This stance has sparked controversy, with rights activist Deji Adeyanju and other groups accusing the police chief of overstepping constitutional boundaries.
In a press statement issued on Sunday, Olumuyiwa Adejobi, the police spokesperson, elaborated on the rationale behind the police’s demands. He emphasized that while the constitution guarantees every Nigerian the right to peaceful assembly, the police have an obligation to ensure that such gatherings do not endanger the general public.
“Requests for the names of the organisers and details such as time, routes, and location of protests are in line with the 1999 constitution,” Adejobi said.
The NPF clarified that it has not infringed upon the constitutional rights of citizens to freedom of association and expression. Instead, the police are focused on maintaining public safety and order during protests. The police spokesperson reiterated that the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental constitutional right, and the police are merely fulfilling their duty to ensure that such assemblies do not disrupt public order or safety.
“It is vital to clarify that the IGP has never denied the constitutional right of every citizen to freedom of association and expression, but has rather, at every point, emphasized that the right is that to peaceful assembly and expression.”
Adejobi further explained that the police’s request for detailed information about the protest organizers, including their names, the time, routes, and locations of the protests, is a standard procedure. This information is essential for effective communication, ensuring the safety of all participants, and preventing any unlawful activities that might arise during the protests.
“Also, the Nigeria Police holds the responsibility to ensure that any activity, including protests, does not pose a threat to national security.”
He pointed out that this practice is in line with the police’s responsibility to safeguard national security and public order. By knowing the details of the protests, the police can better prepare and respond to any potential threats, thereby protecting the rights and freedoms of other citizens as outlined in Section 45 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution.
“In this wise, requesting the details of protest organisers and their leaders and the schedules of their protests, which include location, period, routes etc, is a standard procedure to facilitate effective communication, ensure the safety of all participants, and prevent any unlawful activities,” he said.
The NPF’s insistence on obtaining these details is seen as a preventive measure. By having a clear understanding of the protests’ logistics, the police can manage and oversee the events more effectively, ensuring that they remain peaceful and do not escalate into violence. This approach is particularly pertinent in light of the #EndSARS protest, which started peacefully but turned violent following a government crackdown. The police believe that identifying the organizers can help prevent a repeat of such unrest.
Adejobi, an assistant commissioner of police, stressed that the Inspector General of Police’s (IGP) request is not unreasonable or unconstitutional. It aligns with the broader interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, and public health. Additionally, it aims to protect the rights and freedoms of other individuals who might be affected by the protests.
Adejobi’s statement aims to dispel any misconceptions about the NPF’s intentions and actions. The police are not trying to suppress citizens’ rights but are working within their constitutional mandate to maintain public order and safety. The request for information is a precautionary measure to ensure that protests do not devolve into chaos, thereby safeguarding the well-being of the entire community.
Drawing a comparison to the #EndSARS protest, which turned violent after a government clampdown, the police spokesperson stated that matching a face to the protest would help prevent another national unrest.
The NPF’s stance has drawn mixed reactions. While some citizens understand the need for the police to have detailed information to ensure public safety, others view it as an attempt to intimidate and stifle dissent. Critics argue that demanding such detailed information could discourage people from participating in protests, thereby undermining their constitutional rights.
Rights activists, including Deji Adeyanju, have been vocal in their opposition to the police’s demands. They argue that the constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly without undue interference from the authorities. They believe that the police’s actions could set a dangerous precedent, where the state could use administrative requirements to suppress legitimate dissent.
In response to these criticisms, the police have reiterated their commitment to upholding citizens’ constitutional rights. They assert that their actions are motivated by a genuine concern for public safety and not an attempt to curb free speech or assembly. The NPF has called on citizens to cooperate with the police by providing the necessary information to ensure that protests are conducted peacefully and without incident.
As the debate continues, it is clear that the balance between ensuring public safety and protecting constitutional rights remains a delicate one. The NPF’s actions will likely continue to be scrutinized by both supporters and critics, as the nation navigates the complex landscape of civil liberties and public order. The outcome of this controversy will set an important precedent for how future protests are managed and how citizens’ rights are upheld in Nigeria.
