Human Rights Activist Sowore Defies DSS, Says No Security Agency Can Dictate How Nigerians Criticise President Tinubu

 

Human rights activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore has openly rejected a directive from the Department of State Services asking him to withdraw a social media post critical of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The fiery activist responded with a strongly worded letter to the agency’s Director General, describing the demand as unlawful, unconstitutional, and an attempt to turn the secret police into an attack dog for the presidency.

The outspoken former presidential candidate declared that no state institution has the authority to instruct citizens on how they should criticise elected officials. He insisted that freedom of expression remains a fundamental right guaranteed by Nigeria’s constitution and reinforced by international human rights conventions. For Sowore, the attempt by the DSS to interfere with his statements is not just an overreach but another example of the agency’s long history of intimidation against voices of dissent.

According to him, Nigerians have an unshakable determination to liberate their country from corrupt political leaders. “You have no business telling me how to criticise the President. The determination of the Nigerian people to reclaim their country from thieves in power is unwavering, and it shall be achieved. Freedom cometh by struggle. Aluta continua, victoria ascerta,” he wrote, signaling that his activism remains unbowed despite repeated harassment.

Sowore reminded the DSS of its decades-long record of harassing him personally. He traced the timeline of persecution back to the 1990s during his days as a student leader when security agencies repeatedly clamped down on campus activism. He recalled being arrested in 1993 and 1996, as well as his more recent ordeal in 2019 when he was charged with treason and money laundering. That episode, which drew international condemnation, included his prolonged detention and the infamous invasion of a Federal High Court by DSS operatives who re-arrested him during trial proceedings.

The activist accused the DSS of consistently acting “bullishly, illegally and unlawfully” regardless of which government holds power. He said the agency’s attempt to compel him to withdraw remarks against Tinubu amounts to carrying out duties that are not legally assigned to it. For him, the DSS has crossed the line into unconstitutional behavior by attempting to enforce what is essentially a personal matter of defamation, which only the aggrieved individual has the right to pursue.

Citing provisions of the 1999 Constitution as well as treaties under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Sowore argued that citizens have full rights to scrutinize, condemn, and challenge the conduct of public office holders. He described the DSS letter as a fundamentally defective document with no legal basis, stressing that criticism of government is a vital element of democracy. He reminded the security agency that its role is national security, not shielding the president from public opinion.

Beyond the legal arguments, Sowore’s response carried a familiar tone of defiance that has marked his career as a journalist, activist, and political candidate. He said his remarks were consistent with his life-long campaign against corruption and misrule. According to him, Nigeria cannot be free until citizens demand accountability from those in power. He further stated that attempts to muzzle dissent would only intensify the resolve of ordinary Nigerians to reclaim their country.

Observers note that the confrontation underscores the tense relationship between civil society and security agencies in Nigeria. Over the years, the DSS has often been accused of overstepping its boundaries, especially in cases involving political opponents or critics of government. Sowore’s case is seen by many as a litmus test for how far the current administration is willing to tolerate dissenting voices in a climate where insecurity, economic hardship, and governance challenges dominate public discourse.

Critics of the DSS letter argue that it reflects a growing intolerance of opposition in Nigeria’s political space. They point out that democracy thrives only when citizens are free to question leaders without fear of reprisal. By attempting to police criticism, the DSS risks reinforcing perceptions that it serves as a political tool rather than an impartial security agency.

For Sowore, however, the issue goes beyond his personal ordeal. He frames it as a struggle for the collective right of Nigerians to speak truth to power. His closing words in the letter captured that spirit. “The DSS has dragged me through unscrupulous abuse and gross violations of rights for decades without remorse. But the resolve of Nigerians to take back their country from thieves in power remains alive.”

The standoff is unlikely to end soon as Sowore has made clear that he will neither retract his statements nor bow to intimidation. Whether the DSS chooses to escalate the matter or retreats quietly, the exchange has once again thrown national attention on the fragile balance between security powers and democratic freedoms in Nigeria.