Five men have been arrested and arraigned in Maiduguri, Borno State, after allegedly printing and wearing T-shirts bearing the inscription “Tinubu Must Go”, prompting criticism from Amnesty International and renewed debate over the limits of political expression and public-order laws in Nigeria.
The incident allegedly occurred on September 25, 2026, at about 11 a.m. around the West End Roundabout area of Maiduguri. A First Information Report dated September 29 and issued by the State Criminal Investigation Department identified the defendants as Baba Aji Gremami, 44; Mustapha Abba Yemen, 28; Abbacha Mohammed Ali, 32; Adam Umar Gubio, 21; and Abdulhamid Mohammed, 21.
According to the police case contained in the FIR, the five men allegedly acted together to print T-shirts carrying the political message and did so with the intention of causing a breach of public peace within the West End Roundabout community. The allegation remains to be proved in court, and the defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Police listed the alleged offences as criminal conspiracy, inciting disturbance, disturbance of public peace and thuggery. The FIR cited Sections 60, 78, 79 and 392 of the Borno State Penal Code as the provisions allegedly violated by the defendants.
The men were subsequently brought before Chief Magistrate Court I in Maiduguri, where they pleaded not guilty to the allegations, according to reports citing court officials. They were reported to have been remanded in custody following their appearance.
The case has attracted particular attention because the words displayed on the T-shirts amount on their face to a political message opposing President Bola Tinubu. The police allegation, however, goes beyond the words themselves by asserting that the shirts were printed and worn with an intention to cause a breach of public peace. Whether prosecutors can establish the alleged intention and the elements of the offences cited in the FIR is ultimately a question for the court.
Amnesty International has criticised the arrests and called for the men to be released. The human-rights organisation described peaceful political dissent as protected expression and argued that displaying an opinion opposing a political leader should not, by itself, result in criminal punishment.
The Borno State chapter of the African Democratic Congress has also criticised the arrests, describing them as unlawful and raising concerns about political expression in the state. The criticism comes as political activity intensifies ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections, in which President Tinubu and other political figures are increasingly becoming the subjects of organised support and opposition campaigns.
Nigeria’s Constitution provides an important legal background to the controversy. Section 39 guarantees freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. The National Human Rights Commission has similarly described freedom of expression as a fundamental right recognised under Nigerian, regional and international human-rights standards.
That constitutional protection is not unlimited. Section 45 permits laws imposing restrictions on certain rights, including freedom of expression, where such restrictions are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society for purposes including public safety and public order or protecting the rights and freedoms of other people. Consequently, the legal question is not simply whether political speech is protected, but whether the conduct alleged by police lawfully falls within an applicable restriction.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which forms part of Nigeria’s legal framework, also recognises the right of individuals to express and disseminate their opinions within the law. These protections provide the broader context in which the prosecution and any challenge to the defendants’ detention may be examined.
Separately, reports have carried an allegation from an unnamed source that the arrests followed a directive from Borno State Governor Babagana Umara Zulum to Commissioner of Police Naziru Abdulmajid. That allegation has not been independently substantiated. No publicly verified document reviewed for this report establishes that Zulum personally ordered the arrests, and it should therefore not be presented as confirmed fact.
Attempts reported by Vanguard to obtain confirmation from Borno police spokesperson ASP Kenneth Daso were unsuccessful at the time of publication. That leaves some questions about the circumstances surrounding the arrests and the authorities’ response to criticism unanswered.
The development has broader significance because slogans demanding that political leaders leave office are a longstanding feature of democratic protest around the world. In Nigeria, however, the legality of any particular demonstration or political action can depend on its circumstances, including whether authorities can establish conduct that goes beyond peaceful expression and satisfies the requirements of an offence recognised by law.
For ordinary Nigerians, the case could therefore become an important test of where authorities and courts draw the boundary between political dissent and conduct considered capable of disturbing public order. The existence of an unpopular, critical or opposition political message does not by itself determine that question; prosecutors must prove the offences alleged against the defendants according to law.
The case also arrives during an increasingly active pre-election period. Nigeria is scheduled to hold another general election in 2027, and political parties, candidates, supporters and critics are already increasing mobilisation. Public debate surrounding Tinubu’s administration, opposition parties, economic conditions and governance is consequently likely to become more prominent as the election approaches.
The defendants have not been convicted of any offence. Their not-guilty pleas mean the allegations against them remain contested, and the prosecution bears the responsibility of establishing its case before the court. Further proceedings should also clarify the precise conditions of their remand and the evidence police intend to rely upon to establish the alleged intention to disturb public peace.
The controversy will now be watched not only as a criminal case involving five Maiduguri residents but also for its implications for political expression. The eventual judicial handling of the charges could help clarify how public-order provisions interact with constitutionally protected political speech when citizens openly display opposition to an elected government.
Until the court determines those questions, the established facts remain narrower than some political claims surrounding the case: five men were arrested and arraigned over allegations linked to “Tinubu Must Go” T-shirts, they pleaded not guilty, police cited public-order offences, and rights advocates have challenged the authorities’ actions. Claims concerning who politically directed the arrests remain unverified.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments