Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded the immediate release of five men arrested and arraigned in Maiduguri, Borno State, over T-shirts bearing the inscription “Tinubu Must Go,” arguing that peaceful expression of opposition to a sitting president should not be treated as a criminal offence in a democratic society.
Atiku made the demand on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, following growing criticism of the arrests. The five defendants are Baba Aji Gremami, 44; Mustapha Abba Yemen, 28; Abbacha Mohammed Ali, 32; Adam Umar Gubio, 21; and Abdulhamid Mohammed, 21.
Reacting through Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Atiku questioned how wearing clothing carrying a political slogan could become an offence if the expression was peaceful.
“If a political slogan is the reason for their detention, then those responsible owe Nigerians an explanation as to how wearing a shirt became a crime in a democracy,” Atiku said in substance while demanding that authorities disclose the detainees’ whereabouts, guarantee access to their lawyers and families and release them if their political message was the basis for the arrests.
Atiku also drew a comparison with President Bola Tinubu’s participation in protests during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
He argued that Tinubu had been able to publicly oppose government policies, including during demonstrations against the removal of fuel subsidy under Jonathan, and said Nigerians should retain the same freedom to criticise Tinubu’s administration.
“Tinubu was free to tell Jonathan that his policies were hurting Nigerians. Nigerians must be free to tell Tinubu that his policies are hurting them. Release these five citizens now,” Atiku said.
The former vice president characterised “Tinubu Must Go” as a demand for political change rather than, by itself, a threat.
His position adds to criticism already expressed by Amnesty International and the Borno State chapter of the African Democratic Congress over the arrest and prosecution of the five men.
The police case, however, contains allegations extending beyond the mere possession of politically worded clothing.
According to a First Information Report issued by the State Criminal Investigation Department in Maiduguri on September 29, police alleged that the five men conspired to print T-shirts carrying the “Tinubu Must Go” inscription with the intention of causing a breach of public peace around the West End Roundabout community in Maiduguri.
The FIR said the alleged incident occurred on September 25 at about 11 a.m.
Police listed the alleged offences as criminal conspiracy, inciting disturbance, disturbance of public peace and thuggery under Sections 60, 78, 79 and 392 of the Borno State Penal Code.
The defendants have not been convicted of those allegations.
When they appeared before Chief Magistrate Court I in Maiduguri, all five pleaded not guilty. Their lawyers subsequently applied for bail.
The court adjourned proceedings until October 6 for a ruling on their bail application, while the substantive trial was scheduled for October 26.
The arrests have generated a wider argument over freedom of expression and the extent to which authorities can restrict political messages on grounds of maintaining public order.
Amnesty International has demanded the immediate and unconditional release of the defendants, describing their detention as arbitrary and arguing that peacefully expressing political opposition through clothing is protected political expression.
The rights organisation said wearing a T-shirt containing a message of political dissent does not, on its own, constitute a criminal offence and urged authorities to respect freedom of expression and association.
The Borno State chapter of the ADC has taken a similar position.
Its Publicity Secretary, Baba Ahmed Mustapha, said the party regarded the arrests as an infringement on the defendants’ freedom of expression and called on the Borno State Commissioner of Police to ensure that security agencies remained professional and politically neutral.
The Nigerian Constitution protects freedom of expression under Section 39, although constitutional rights are not absolute and may be subject to restrictions permitted by law.
That makes the circumstances surrounding the defendants’ conduct relevant to the eventual legal determination.
The police allegation is not simply that the men held an unfavourable opinion about Tinubu. Their FIR alleges that they acted with the intention of causing a breach of public peace.
The defendants deny the charges, meaning it will be for the prosecution to establish the alleged offences through evidence before the court.
Atiku’s intervention, meanwhile, focuses on the political-expression aspect of the case.
His argument is that opposition to a president, including a demand that the president leave office, should remain permissible political speech where it is expressed peacefully.
The controversy has acquired additional significance as political activities intensify ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general election.
Atiku is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress and one of the opposition figures seeking to challenge Tinubu, who is expected to seek another term under the ruling All Progressives Congress. The case therefore sits within an increasingly competitive political environment.
A separate allegation has circulated that Borno State Governor Babagana Umara Zulum directed Commissioner of Police Naziru Abdulmajid to arrest the men.
That allegation originated from an unnamed source and has not been independently established. The police FIR reported in connection with the case does not prove that Zulum personally ordered the arrests.
It would therefore be inappropriate to present the governor’s alleged involvement as confirmed fact.
The distinction is particularly important because the case has already become politically charged.
What can presently be established is that five men were arrested and charged; police allege that their activities were intended to disturb public peace; the defendants pleaded not guilty; and political figures and rights organisations have challenged the decision to prosecute them.
For Nigerians, the case raises a broader question about the boundary between political dissent and conduct authorities consider threatening to public order.
Democracy necessarily allows strong criticism of elected leaders, including statements demanding political change. At the same time, authorities retain responsibility for addressing conduct that can be established under law as threatening public safety.
The central issue for the court will therefore not be political disagreement over whether Tinubu should remain president but whether prosecutors can prove the specific offences alleged against the five defendants.
Atiku has made his position clear: if their detention rests principally on the political message printed on their shirts, they should be released immediately.
Amnesty International and the Borno ADC have reached a similar conclusion, while the police case maintains that the defendants’ alleged actions went beyond expression and were intended to cause a breach of public peace.
Until the allegations are determined in court, the five men remain entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The October 6 bail ruling will be the next significant stage in the proceedings, followed by the substantive case scheduled for October 26.
For now, Atiku’s intervention has transformed what began as a local arrest in Maiduguri into a wider national debate about political dissent, policing and freedom of expression as Nigeria moves closer to another general election.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments