By Hon. Kenneth Gbandi
The recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos involving Omoyele Sowore and the leadership of the Nigeria Police Force is more than a courtroom contest between an activist and the state. It is a defining constitutional moment that compels us to re-examine the boundaries of power, dissent, and institutional accountability in Nigeria’s democracy.
In setting aside the declaration of Sowore as “wanted” and awarding damages against the Lagos State Commissioner of Police and the Inspector-General of Police, the Court did something far more significant than merely resolve a dispute. It clarified a principle: in a constitutional democracy, coercive state authority must flow from law, not from administrative impulse.
The central issue was not personality. It was power. Can a citizen be publicly branded a fugitive without a judicial warrant? Can law enforcement, by mere pronouncement, restrict a citizen’s movement or civic engagement? The Court’s reasoning makes it clear that policing powers, however broad, are not self-executing instruments of intimidation. They are subject to constitutional discipline.
For many of us who have spent decades in the diaspora and who are increasingly concerned about the growing impunity among certain law enforcement agencies including the DSS and the EFCC, this distinction is fundamental. It offers a ray of hope that Nigeria still has members of the judiciary who have refused to sacrifice their calling on the altar of partisan pressure. Nigerians are simply advocating for a system where dissent is normalized and institutional restraint is deeply embedded in governance culture. In functional democracies, law enforcement agencies understand that the legitimacy of their authority depends on procedural compliance. Declarations that impair liberty must be anchored in court orders, supported by evidence, and subjected to judicial scrutiny. Anything less risks sliding into arbitrariness.
What makes this judgment particularly instructive is its emphasis on due process. The Court effectively underscored that declaring a citizen “wanted” is not a public relations exercise; it is a legal action with reputational, psychological, and civic consequences. Such a step requires lawful foundation typically a warrant, proof of evasion, and adherence to established procedure. Without these safeguards, the action becomes constitutionally defective.
Equally significant is the issue of institutional responsibility. By extending liability beyond the immediate officer to the apex of police leadership, the judgment reinforces a culture of accountability. Leadership in public institutions is not ceremonial; it carries legal consequences. When constitutional lines are crossed, responsibility does not evaporate within bureaucracy.
For those of us who have consistently advocated democratic consolidation whether in electoral reform, diaspora inclusion, or rule-of-law campaigns, this ruling is a reminder that Nigeria’s constitutional architecture still possesses corrective mechanisms. The judiciary, when resolute, can recalibrate executive excess and reaffirm the supremacy of law.
Yet we must resist the temptation to reduce this moment to personalities or partisanship. The durability of democracy is not measured by who wins a case, but by whether institutions internalize its lessons. If law enforcement agencies recalibrate their operational culture to reflect the procedural standards articulated in this judgment, then the ruling will have achieved systemic value.
The broader democratic implication is unmistakable. Citizenship in a constitutional republic is not obedience to unlawful authority; it is participation within a framework of protected rights and enforceable limits on power. When those limits are tested and the courts respond with clarity, democratic equilibrium is restored.
From where many of us stand in the diaspora, Nigeria’s democratic evolution remains a work in progress, uneven, contested, yet not devoid of institutional courage. This decision adds to the growing body of jurisprudence that insists that dissent is not criminality and that state power must always justify itself before the law.
The ultimate test now lies beyond the courtroom. Will public institutions absorb this constitutional correction? Will citizens consolidate this gain through vigilance and civic maturity? Democratic growth is incremental, often forged in moments like this when the law speaks firmly and authority is reminded of its boundaries.
If that reminder endures, then this judgment will be remembered not simply as a legal victory, but as a reaffirmation that in Nigeria’s democracy, power still bows when challenged to the Constitution.
Hon. Kenneth Gbandi is a veteran diaspora and ADC Diaspora Leader, at the forefront of sustained advocacy for credible elections, electoral technology reform, and accountable governance in Nigeria.
