The crux of this legal dispute revolves around a cyberbullying charge filed against Omoyele Sowore, a Nigerian activist and former presidential candidate, by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun. Sowore, known for his outspoken critiques of the government, had publicly referred to Egbetokun as an “illegal IGP” on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), prompting the IGP to initiate legal proceedings. Renowned human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has intervened, urging the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to withdraw the charge, arguing that it represents a misuse of legal process and a violation of Sowore’s constitutional rights.
Falana’s argument centers on several key points. Firstly, he contends that the charge itself is unconstitutional and violates the Police Act, specifically Regulation 367 which prohibits police officers from initiating legal proceedings in their personal interest or relating to their public duties. By bringing a charge against Sowore for criticizing him, the IGP, according to Falana, is acting in his personal capacity rather than upholding public interest. This action constitutes a conflict of interest and undermines the integrity of the police force.
Secondly, Falana highlights the constitutional provision (Section 174) that empowers the Attorney General to institute criminal proceedings, but stipulates that such prosecutions must be in the public interest, uphold justice, and prevent the abuse of legal process. He argues that the charge against Sowore satisfies none of these criteria and represents a clear abuse of power by the IGP. The charge, Falana asserts, is motivated by personal grievance rather than any genuine public interest. Furthermore, the charge potentially infringes upon Sowore’s fundamental right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic societies.
The background to this case involves a controversy surrounding Egbetokun’s tenure as IGP. Questions were raised about the legality of his continued service given his age and proximity to the mandatory retirement age for civil servants. However, the Attorney General subsequently clarified that the recently amended Police Act permits an IGP to serve a full four-year term irrespective of the retirement age, thus validating Egbetokun’s continued stay in office. This clarification, however, does not negate the fundamental arguments presented by Falana regarding the misuse of legal process in the cyberbullying charge against Sowore.
Falana’s letter to the Attorney General further underscores the fact that the IGP utilized legal officers under his command to file a 16-count charge against Sowore. This reinforces the perception of an abuse of power and highlights the potential for intimidation and suppression of dissenting voices. The fact that Sowore pleaded not guilty to the charges further emphasizes the contested nature of the case and the need for a thorough legal examination of the claims made by both sides.
In his concluding remarks, Falana formally requests the Attorney General to exercise his powers under relevant sections of the Constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to discontinue the charge against Sowore. He emphasizes the need to uphold the principles of justice, protect fundamental rights, and prevent the misuse of legal processes for personal vendettas. The case raises crucial questions about the balance between the right to freedom of expression and the need to prevent cyberbullying, while also scrutinizing the potential abuse of power within law enforcement agencies. The Attorney General’s decision will have significant implications for freedom of speech and the rule of law in Nigeria.
