Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
The Federal High Court Lagos has delivered a judgment declaring as unconstitutional the decision of the Lagos State police authorities to declare activist Omoyele Sowore wanted in November 2025. Justice M. Kakaki, in a judgment that lasted approximately one hour and thirty minutes during delivery, ruled that the police action exceeded lawful authority and violated constitutional protections relating to freedom of expression and due process.
The court awarded ₦30 million in damages jointly against the Moshood Jimoh, who served as Commissioner of Police in Lagos State at the time, and Kayode Egbetokun in his capacity as Inspector-General of Police.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that no citizen in Nigeria can be lawfully criminalized merely for speaking, organizing protest activity, or holding government institutions accountable. The judgment stated that declaring a person wanted without judicial authorization, valid warrant issuance, or proof that the individual is evading lawful process constitutes abuse of state power and contravenes constitutional safeguards.
The controversy originated from public pronouncements made by the Lagos State Police Command on 27 October 2025, when Sowore was allegedly warned to stay away from Lagos State. Subsequently, on 3 November 2025, police authorities reportedly declared him wanted, a move the court later found to be arbitrary, ultra vires, and unconstitutional.
During the judgment, the court examined historical and legal principles governing the declaration of citizens as wanted persons. Justice Kakaki reportedly held that modern constitutional democracy restricts such authority to judicial institutions. According to the court’s reasoning, only a competent court may authorize a wanted declaration after proper service of process, issuance of warrant, and demonstrable evidence that a suspect is deliberately evading lawful proceedings.
The court further ruled that the police pronouncements represented a grave abuse of executive policing power. The judgment specifically condemned the 2025 warning issued by the Commissioner of Police directing Sowore to stay away from Lagos, describing the directive as lacking legal foundation and inconsistent with constitutional freedoms.
Legal observers have described the ruling as a significant judicial pronouncement on the limits of police administrative authority in Nigeria. The decision reinforces constitutional protections relating to freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and the right to participate in lawful protest activities without intimidation.
The award of ₦30 million in damages was described by the court as symbolic compensation for constitutional violation rather than the primary objective of the litigation. Counsel representing the claimant argued that the broader significance of the judgment lies in its jurisprudential clarification of policing boundaries in a democratic society.
According to the court’s reasoning, state power must operate strictly within constitutional and statutory frameworks. The judgment stressed that law enforcement institutions exist to enforce legality rather than to suppress lawful dissent or political expression.
The ruling also placed responsibility on the leadership of the police institution. By holding the Commissioner of Police and the Inspector-General of Police jointly liable, the court signaled that administrative oversight is necessary to prevent unauthorized exercise of coercive authority within security agencies.
The legal team representing Sowore, led by counsel Tope Temokun, described the decision as a landmark constitutional victory. The counsel argued that the judgment affirms the principle that citizenship does not require obedience to unlawful directives issued by state authorities.
The defence position during the proceedings had challenged aspects of the claim, but the court ultimately found that the police action lacked lawful justification. Judicial sources indicate that the court relied on constitutional interpretation, statutory policing guidelines, and precedents concerning abuse of executive authority.
Civil rights observers have linked the judgment to broader debates regarding protest rights and state response to political activism in Nigeria. Over the past decade, Nigerian courts have occasionally issued rulings reinforcing constitutional protections for civic expression, although enforcement of such rulings has sometimes generated controversy.
Security analysts say the judgment may influence future police operational protocols, particularly regarding public communication about suspects and the legal thresholds required before declaring individuals wanted. The ruling underscores the importance of judicial authorization in actions that may restrict personal liberty.
The Nigeria Police Force has not yet issued an official public response to the judgment. Legal commentators suggest that the affected parties may exercise their right to appeal if they wish to challenge the decision at a higher court.
The case has sparked public debate about the relationship between law enforcement and civil liberties. Supporters of the judgment argue that it strengthens democratic governance by limiting arbitrary executive action. Critics, however, caution that policing authorities must retain sufficient operational flexibility to respond to security threats.
The court’s decision was widely interpreted by civil society advocates as reinforcing the principle that constitutional democracy is founded on the rule of law rather than administrative discretion. Human rights organizations have described the ruling as a warning against the misuse of security institutions for political or personal purposes.
As discussions continue, legal scholars predict that the judgment may become a reference point in future litigation concerning police authority, protest regulation, and citizen rights in Nigeria. The outcome reflects ongoing judicial efforts to balance state security responsibilities with fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the constitution.
The case ultimately represents a significant episode in Nigeria’s evolving constitutional jurisprudence, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as an arbiter of state power and individual liberty. Whether the ruling will prompt institutional policy adjustments within law enforcement agencies remains to be seen, but the judgment has already generated nationwide attention.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments