by Danladi Shehu

If a man cooks for a community, the meal would scarcely go round. However, if a community decides to cook for a man, the feast will overwhelm him – old African proverb.

The foregoing may have aptly captured the likely outcome of the current standoff between the Department of State Services (DSS) and Omoyele Sowore, activist and presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in the 2023 general elections.

Speaking during his latest state visit to Brazil in late August, President Bola Tinubu, while wooing Brazilian investors, assured that his government had rid the foreign currency exchange market of speculators and corruption. For emphasis, the president stressed, “The Central Bank Governor is here. You do not need to know him before getting the foreign exchange that you need.”

I watched the entire remarks made by President Tinubu. At no point did he claim to have rid Nigeria of corruption, as that would have been preposterous. President Tinubu was specific about foreign currency operations under his watch. And he didn’t mince words about that.

However, reacting to the president’s claim that his policies had specifically restored transparency and confidence to the foreign exchange system, Sowore wrote on his X handle: “This criminal @officialABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is NO MORE corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!” Ever since this post, the centre has not been able to hold for this activist and politician who lost to Tinubu in 2023.

No sooner had Sowore’s post calling President Tinubu a “criminal” gone viral than several Civil Society Organizations(CSOs) began addressing press conferences calling upon him to retract the statement. The CSOs were followed by several political support groups of Tinubu calling on Sowore to pull down his post and apologize to the president. The CSOs and the Tinubu support groups argued that it was unlawful for Sowore to have called President Tinubu “criminal” since, according to them, under Nigerian law, a criminal is a person who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime.

DSS WADES IN

Not many know the relationship between the Lt. Col. Buka Dimka-led February 13, 1976 bloody coup, which claimed the life of the Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed, and the creation of the Department of State Services. After the dust of the coup had settled, General Muhammed’s successor, General Olusegun Obasanjo, realised that the absence of a special security agency dedicated to protecting the Head of State made Murtala vulnerable. Thus, the Supreme Military Council (SMC), in 1976, established the National Security Organisation (NSO).

The NSO was given a mandate of coordinating Internal Security, Foreign Intelligence, and counterintelligence activities.It was charged with the detection and prevention of any crime against the security of the state, with the protection of classified materials, and with carrying out any other security missions assigned by the president. However, shortly after August 1985, when General Ibrahim Babangida ousted the regime of General Muhammadu Buhari, the new government saw the challenges faced by the NSO, which made it easy for the Buhari regime to be toppled so effortlessly. Babangida’s answer was to unbundle the NSO. Thus was born the State Security Service (DSS), also known as the DSS, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA).

The DSS was now empowered with the mandate of exclusively dealing with matters of internal security.

According to Section 3(a) of the National Security Agencies Act, the State Security Service, otherwise called the DSS, is vested with the following responsibilities:

(a) the prevention and detection within Nigeria of any crime against the internal security of Nigeria;

(b) the protection and preservation of all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria; and

(c) such other responsibilities affecting internal security within Nigeria as the National Assembly or the President, as the case may be, may deem necessary.

In Nigeria, conduct likely to cause a breach of peace encompasses actions like unlawful assemblies, incitement to violence, or other disruptive behaviours that disturb public order, as defined by laws such as the Public Order Act.

One of the chief functions of the DSS, which many Nigerians know, is VIP protection. This protection isn’t just physical protection. It also involves granting VIPs psychological protection from embarrassment. It is in line with this psychological protection that framers of the Constitution grant such VIPs as the President, his deputy, governors, and their deputies immunity so they can fully concentrate on the art of governance.

While there is no single exhaustive list, general factors contributing to a breach of the peace include ethnic and religious intolerance, political instability, corruption, unemployment, injustice, and poverty, which can fuel violent acts like riots, assaults, and widespread disorder.

Unknown to many, under the Public Order Act, “Words or actions that encourage people to commit acts of violence, mutiny, or disobedience to lawful orders” and “actions that are intended to or likely to create widespread unrest or chaos in a public space” are deemed threats to national security and fall under the purview of the DSS.

Given the mounting tension in the polity deriving from demands by some Tinubu and All Progressives Congress (APC) support groups and other supporters of the president for Sowore to delete his post, on the one hand, and Sowore’s refusal to do so, it would have been reckless and irresponsible for the DSS to have sat by and watch the situation degenerate, possibly into anarchy.

It is most improbable that Sowore and many of those egging him on and hiding behind the pillar of free speech would hand cups of ice cream to anybody who dared call them—or any relations of theirs—”criminal!”

There is nowhere in the world where freedom of expression is absolute. These “freedoms” can be subject to certain restrictions by law, provided these restrictions are necessary. These limitations often include: protecting the reputation or rights of others; maintaining national security; preserving public order, health, or morals; and preventing incitement to violence or hatred, such as propaganda for war, or advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred.

Aside from the fact that Bola Tinubu is president, he is a human being and, as such, entitled to his dignity. His family, friends, and supporters also enjoy the right to protect their dignity. And his.

Over the past year or so that we have had a new DSS leadership, many would agree that the agency has carried out its duties with utmost professionalism. From the apologies and compensation paid by the secret police to victims of the high-handedness of its previous helmsmen, the new DSS leadership earned my respect. Aside from the several successes recorded in the arrest of high-profile terrorists, the DSS also deserves accolades for promptly charging suspects in its custody to court.

A very recent testimony to the commitment of the new DSS leadership to the rule of law is the handling of its spat with another former presidential candidate, Prof. Pat Utomi. The professor’s bid to set up what he dubbed a “shadow government” had drawn the attention of the secret police. Rather than resort to its former tactic of harassing persons whose ideologies misalign with that of the government in power, the new DSS leadership took the matter to court. When Utomi, who was away in the United States when the spat began, returned to Nigeria, he attended a meeting of the Patriots in Abuja, literally under the nose of the DSS. It is on record that no personnel of the DSS harassed or intimidated him.

It is also instructive to note that even though Sowore had on several occasions wrongly called out the DSS, the secret police had, to my utter admiration, ignored him. Even now, nobody can accuse the DSS of threatening, harassing, or intimidating Sowore. The secret police have been largely civil, simply advising him to delete a post they consider inappropriate and capable of causing tension and breaching public peace. Nothing more. Nothing less. If, as some argue, there’s freedom of expression, why do the same social media platforms regulate certain posts by their users that they consider inappropriate or harmful to the good of society?

Even in the United States, the global poster boy of democracy, instances abound where certain persons have been forced by law courts to pay a huge price for merely expressing their freedom of expression.

One of the most celebrated cases is that of Dominion Voting Systems vs. Fox News. Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court’s earlier ruling that Fox had broadcast false statements about Dominion. That was in the United States, the so-called headquarters of freedom of expression!

If, as they say, the morning tells the day, I don’t see Sowore deleting his posts on Tinubu. I also don’t expect to see the current DSS leadership backing down. I foresee this matter ending up in court. Like in the Dominion vs. Fox News legal tussle, it would be good for the courts to decide on the appropriateness or otherwise of calling the president—no, anybody—a criminal.

No doubt, Sowore is used to cooking for the public. He is used to having his way. In life, however, they say, there’s always a first time. From unfolding events, is there a slim chance that the tables might turn and Sowore feast on a meal prepared by the whole community? Only time will tell.

__________________

Shehu lives in Jos, Plateau State

For marketing and advertising, or publishing your promotional content, contact us at [email protected]

Disclaimer: 

It is the policy of NewsWireNGR not to endorse or oppose any opinion expressed by a User or Content provided by a User, Contributor, or another independent party. Opinion pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of NewsWireNGR.