RULAAC slams police over Sowore’s detention, declares it illegal
By Ishaya Ibrahim
The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has knocked the police over the alleged abuse of its power in the arrest and detention of human rights defender and presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in the 2023 election, Omoyele Sowore.
Sowore, who also is the publisher of Sahara Reporters, was arrested last Wednesday in a case where the IGP Kayode Egbetokun and another police officer, Yemisi Kuti, are said to be the complainants.
Sowore had honoured an invitation by the Inspector General of Police Monitoring Unit at the Force Headquarters, Abuja, on Wednesday, following petitions against him by the duo over allegation of defamation and forgery. He has since remained in custody without being charged before any court.
RULAAC, in a statement signed by its executive director Okechukwu Nwanguma, dismissed the commissioner of police in-charge of the Special Intervention Squad, CP Abayomi Shogunle’s claim that Sowore’s prolonged detention was because he refused to make a statement in the presence of his lawyers.
According to Nwanguma, Shogunle’s excuses were untenable, misleading, and contrary to the Constitution, the Police Act 2020, and the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
Nwanguma provided legal provisions which backs the right of a suspect to absolute silence.
He said: “Section 35(2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 35(2) of the Police Act 2020 expressly guarantee the right of an arrested person to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination. This right cannot be twisted into a tool for punishment. A suspect’s refusal to make a statement is not a lawful ground for continued detention. The police have the duty to proceed with investigations using other evidence, not to keep the suspect in custody as retribution.
“2. Violation of the 24–48 Hour Constitutional Limit
“Section 35(4) of the Constitution mandates that an arrested person must be brought before a court within 24 hours where a court is within 40 km, or 48 hours otherwise. Section 62 of the ACJA further requires release on bail if investigation is not completed within that period. Sowore has been detained since Wednesday without any remand order from a court. This is arbitrary detention and a direct breach of the Constitution.
“3. Bailable Allegations Do Not Justify Incommunicado Detention
“Even if the allegations of forgery and cyberbullying were true—which Sowore denies—they are bailable offences under Nigerian law. Sowore voluntarily honoured a police invitation, demonstrating no flight risk. There is no legal or security justification for denying him bail.
“4. Evidence of Mistreatment
“While the CP publicly claimed that Sowore was “not being brutalised,” Sowore has stated from custody that his hand was broken during his arrest, he has been denied access to a doctor, and the police have instead paraded him before the media to create a false impression. These are serious allegations of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, prohibited under Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Anti-Torture Act 2017, and Sections 8–10 of the Police Act 2020.
“5. Abuse of Police Power for Political Intimidation
“Sowore’s recent activism—including leading protests for better police welfare and criticising a recent promotion exercise—appears to be the true trigger for his harassment. Arresting and detaining a critic of the IGP under the guise of investigating petitions amounts to abuse of police powers to stifle dissent, which undermines democracy and the rule of law.
“RULAAC’s Demands
“1. Immediate and unconditional release of Omoyele Sowore from unlawful detention.
“2. Provision of urgent medical care by a qualified doctor for his reported injuries.
“3. Independent investigation into the circumstances of his arrest, the alleged breaking of his hand, and denial of medical treatment.
“4. An end to the misuse of the Nigeria Police Force to harass and intimidate citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.
“The Nigeria Police Force must be reminded that constitutional rights are not privileges subject to police discretion. Protecting those rights is not optional—it is their primary duty under the law.”
