Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Pierre Antoine
Events described by activist politician Omoyele Sowore as a confrontation between state power, legal procedure, and civil resistance unfolded over the past twenty-four hours in Abuja, generating public debate about judicial independence, police conduct, and political influence in criminal defamation proceedings.
The controversy centres on a complaint involving Nigeria’s Minister of Works, David Umahi, and businesswoman Tracy Nicolas Ohiri, who is accused in a police-initiated case of defaming the minister. Ohiri has publicly alleged that the minister owes her N250 million and that she was subjected to inappropriate advances while attempting to recover the money. These allegations have not been independently verified by judicial authorities, and the minister’s representatives have not issued detailed public responses regarding the specific claims.
According to accounts circulating from activist circles, the sequence of events began at the headquarters of the FCT Police Command in Abuja, where Ohiri was reportedly involved in a complaint-related procedure. Sowore claimed that what initially appeared to be a simple defamation investigation later evolved into a confrontation involving senior police officers allegedly acting under political or administrative pressure, though these assertions have not been confirmed by official security statements.
The case later moved to the Wuse Zone 2 Magistrate Court where Chief Magistrate Ope Ibrahim presided over proceedings. Court officials reportedly heard arguments regarding bail after the defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the defamation charge. Reports from activist observers indicate that the magistrate granted bail, emphasising that continued detention for investigative purposes alone would not be legally justified once bail conditions were satisfied.
The prosecution reportedly opposed the bail request, while defence representatives and supporters of the accused worked to meet the conditions set by the court, which included providing two sureties with valid identification documents. However, allegations later emerged that elements within the police structure attempted to obstruct the release process. Sowore claimed that officers associated with the so-called IGP Monitoring Unit were involved in efforts to challenge the bail implementation, a claim that has not been independently verified.
The individual mentioned in the allegations is Akin Fakorede, described in activist statements as having mobilised legal personnel connected to the prosecution side. There has been no official confirmation from police authorities that such mobilisation occurred, and the Nigeria Police Force has not released a comprehensive response addressing the allegations of interference.
Supporters of the accused, including members associated with the Takeitback Movement, reportedly staged protests within the court premises, arguing that the prosecution process reflected what they perceived as administrative pressure rather than purely legal enforcement. Demonstrators asserted that the continued detention of the businesswoman would constitute a violation of judicially granted bail orders.
Tension reportedly escalated when mobile police personnel arrived at the court in a vehicle allegedly dispatched from the FCT Command. Sowore claimed that he subsequently contacted Acting Inspector-General of Police Tunji Disu, requesting intervention to prevent what he described as unlawful enforcement behaviour. According to the activist’s account, the police contingent was withdrawn from the courtroom following the communication, although there is no official police confirmation of this sequence of events.
However, correctional officers from the Nigeria Correctional Service reportedly maintained that a remand warrant had been issued earlier and that custody transfer procedures should proceed despite the ongoing bail documentation process. This disagreement contributed to further procedural uncertainty regarding the physical location of the defendant during the administrative processing stage.
Another complication emerged when court registry officials reportedly could not immediately locate the case file. Activists interpreted this as possible administrative obstruction, while judicial staff sources suggested that such occurrences can sometimes result from document circulation delays within busy court complexes rather than deliberate interference.
The situation attracted crowds of supporters and observers around the court premises, producing a tense atmosphere that briefly involved the presence of armed police officers stationed outside the building. Public concern intensified as questions were raised about the balance between law enforcement authority and judicial rulings granting conditional liberty.
As pressure mounted, activist participants claimed that security personnel were eventually withdrawn from the courtroom environment following communication with higher police authorities. The correctional service officers, however, maintained that they were operating under legal remand directives and therefore required formal confirmation that bail obligations had been completed before releasing custody control.
Ultimately, according to accounts from Sowore and supporters of the accused, arrangements were made to prevent immediate transfer of Ohiri to the Keffi custodial facility in neighbouring Nasarawa State. Instead, the objective was to ensure that the accused remained within reasonable proximity to the magistrate court to facilitate completion of bail documentation.
Uncertainty remains regarding court operations for the following day, as reports indicate that the magistrate court complex may not sit due to ongoing renovation work. If confirmed, this could potentially delay finalisation of the bail process and prolong administrative uncertainty surrounding the defendant’s release.
Legal experts observing the development have emphasised that criminal defamation proceedings must adhere strictly to constitutional guarantees of due process, particularly where detention is involved. Nigerian law provides for bail in non-capital offences except where compelling reasons justify continued custody, and courts generally retain discretion to enforce or modify bail conditions.
The incident reflects broader national debates surrounding law enforcement conduct, political influence in criminal litigation, and protection of free expression within Nigeria’s evolving democratic environment. Civil society organisations have repeatedly called for clearer procedural transparency when high-profile individuals are involved in criminal or quasi-political disputes.
As of the latest reports, the Nigeria Police Force has not issued a detailed official statement addressing the specific allegations of pressure, administrative interference, or courtroom mobilisation described by activist sources. Similarly, representatives of Minister David Umahi have not publicly responded to the detailed claims surrounding the financial dispute and alleged personal conduct allegations.
Whether the matter will proceed to full judicial determination or generate further political and legal controversy remains uncertain. Observers expect developments to continue as bail processing, court scheduling, and investigative procedures advance in the coming days.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments