On Friday, April 24, 2026, a video of a woman鈥檚 cry for help made the rounds on social media. In the video, a woman who described herself as a mother of two young children said she was being harassed for calling out inappropriate content in her child鈥檚 school textbook.

A passage described an owner using hot metal to burn his dog as punishment. She felt this violence could negatively influence young minds and made a video about it.

The young mother says she deleted that video after a representative of the publishers reached out, but she alleges threats to her life and harassment of people close to her followed. She also claimed the police invited her for questioning, which she sees as a cover for arrest. “I don鈥檛 have money for lawyers,” she said tearfully.

On Sunday, April 26, 2026, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan posted supporting the woman. Akpoti-Uduaghan said: “Parents have every right to question and vet the materials their children are exposed to. Likewise, publishers and business owners must remain open to feedback, while the Ministry of Education and its agencies must be proactive in ensuring that all educational materials meet appropriate standards. Threats or intimidation over such concerns are unacceptable.” She then said she was looking to get in contact with the distressed mother to make sure “this matter can be properly addressed.”

The customer is always right a suspect

In Nigeria, these cases are far too common. Businesses use aggressive tactics to silence public criticism. Just last week, we covered the filed against Love Dooshima by Bon Bread, after she questioned the suspiciously long shelf life of some bread brands. Dooshima did not name Bon Bread or show its logo, yet she was arrested and detained overnight.

In September 2023, of its product, Nagiko Tomato Mix, on Facebook. Okoli , which has now dragged on for over two years.

But how are these brands able to do this and get the police to help them?

Words hurt, you know

We spoke to , a lawyer and researcher at Juritrust Centre for Socio-legal Research and Documentation. He said the law does protect the rights of consumers to complain. “Yes. There are laws that protect the right of consumers to complain about products and services. The general framework is governed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018,” he said.

But he added that businesses also have a right to protect themselves from criticism they believe will damage their reputation. “We must acknowledge the right of consumers to complain. We must also acknowledge the right of businesses to protect their reputation,” Ewuziem said.

The tension between where consumer rights end and business rights begin is the source of these issues. The reason businesses can go after customers with the full force of the police is that, in Nigeria, the law allows them to.

The law says “watch your mouth”

Defamation is included in the Criminal Code Act, where it is defined as injuring someone’s reputation by exposing them to 鈥渉atred, contempt, or ridicule.鈥� It can carry a prison sentence of up to two years.

There鈥檚 also the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015, which defined Cyberstalking as knowingly sending a message by computer or network that causes: annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will, or needless anxiety.

Some of the items on that list seem reasonable enough, but 鈥渁nnoyance?鈥� Really? Can we be arrested just for annoying someone? It is a miracle we haven鈥檛 all been locked up. The punishment is a fine of up to 鈧�7 million and three years in prison. Cyberstalking was the charge brought against Chioma Okoli.

After intense public pressure, section 24 was tweaked in 2024 in the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) (Amendment) Act 2024, which limited the cyberstalking definition to material that is either pornographic or capable of 鈥渃ausing a breakdown of law and order鈥� or 鈥減osing a threat to life.鈥� This already shows the impact our voices can have on changing laws that make our lives difficult. More on that later.

Freedom of (after?) speech

Now, the obvious defence for Nigerians targeted by tyrannical brands is the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. Section 39 states that all Nigerians are entitled to freedom of opinion and expression, to receive and share ideas without interference. It also says that we are entitled to use any medium for the dissemination of those ideas and opinions. That includes the computer systems mentioned in the Cybercrimes Act. But even that is not all black or white.

“There are limitations; freedom of speech isn鈥檛 absolute,” Ewuziem said. In each case, it is up to the courts to decide if a critic has violated the rights of the business. Ewuziem explained that the courts of law are in the best position to balance the right to freedom of speech of the consumer against the right to protect businesses against unfounded claims.

The problem here is that having defamation under criminal law turns matters of opinion into criminal trials. Defamation is a real thing, but ultimately it is a civil matter and should be settled in civil court.

As usual, we’re behind the rest of the world

Ewuziem agrees that defamation should be a civil matter. “Comparative law already indicates that defamation has been decriminalised in many countries,” he said. “Justice Helen Ogunwumiju JSC in actually called on lawmakers to remove defamation as a crime.”

Making defamation a criminal matter justifies the involvement of the police, whom these businesses use like personal thugs. Ewuziem said it should be a civil matter only and should not be included in the Criminal Code Act.

When these cases get to court, even if the judge upholds constitutional freedom, the damage is already done. For some businesses, getting a conviction isn’t the point; humiliation and revenge are.

“This concept is called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP),” Ewuziem explained. “This is when companies know that they can’t actually win a particular case, but they use the legal system to intimidate and frustrate critics.”

Corporate terrorism

When we think about Chioma Okoli losing her pregnancy, or a mother crying because she has no money for lawyers, the damage is done long before a judgment arrives. Legal fees and psychological costs are paid during these ordeals. These businesses can afford years of court cases and can get critics detained. It is a test of financial and physical stamina where the odds are stacked against the individual.

Ewuziem shared that there are ongoing calls to tackle this trend with several legal and human rights organisations working on it. 鈥淚’m using this opportunity to call on policymakers to consider the formulation of anti-SLAPP laws in Nigeria,鈥� he said.

As businesses exhaust and silence visible critics, their tactic also helps them silence potential ones. You see a substandard product, but you remember these cases and decide to swallow your dissatisfaction. These brands are engaging in a war against our right to complain and demand accountability. It is obscene and has to stop. We must all lend our voices to the cause.

Human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong, who is defending Chioma Okoli in her legal battle with Erisco Foods,  ran to the rescue of Love Dooshima when Bon Bread had her detained. And now, it appears Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan might take up this mother鈥檚 case. Their actions are noble, but Effiong cannot defend the whole of Nigeria, and we cannot keep relying on the luck of a viral video appealing to the mercy of a top government official.

Individual interventions will not save us from a systemic problem. We need root-deep solutions.

We don鈥檛 need heroes鈥� we need better laws

First, the National Assembly must decriminalise defamation. It should be a civil matter only; the police have no business pacifying hurt feelings. At the very least, the law must clearly exclude product reviews and whistleblowing from the definition.

Second, we need consequences for bullies. Businesses currently weaponise the police with zero risk. We need a law mandating companies to pay sizeable damages to consumers they wrongfully arrest. If a brand uses the police as private enforcers, they should pay for the human rights violations they trigger.

Third, the Police must stop acting as reputation managers. The Inspector General of the force, Tunji Disu, must issue a directive: any product review is a civil matter for the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), not a criminal matter for the station.

How we save ourselves

All of these solutions won’t magically happen. We have to make them a reality. That means contacting your representatives in the National Assembly and letting them know you are unhappy with the laws used to gag you.

While we wait for the laws to catch up, we need to know what tools are available to us. According to Ewuziem, it is best to follow lawful procedures for making complaints to avoid exposing yourself to legal troubles.

“The law asks the consumer to first approach the business with their complaints,” Ewuziem said. “If satisfactory steps aren’t taken, the consumer can escalate the matter to regulators.”

Consumers can file official complaints with regulators like the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), or the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON).

Ewuziem added that the consumer also has the right to approach the court with their complaints. When possible, he encourages consumers to get legal advice before posting product reviews.

Who are we?

A healthy economy with high quality products is built on a conversation, not a monologue. When a brand can harass a mother for worrying about her child鈥檚 education, or a shop owner for raising concerns about food safety, it is not protecting its reputation; it is admitting its product cannot survive scrutiny.

Nigeria must decide: are we a modern nation of discerning citizens, or a corporate fiefdom where the customer is always wrong and treated as a criminal? If we don’t stop this trend, the next person crying “I don鈥檛 have money for lawyers” could be you. It is time for collective accountability. It is the only way forward.

Disclaimer: All of views expressed by Ifeanyi Ewuziem are his and are not to be attributed to the Juritrust Centre for Socio-legal Research and Documentation.

We want to hear about your personal experiences that reflect how politics or public systems affect daily life in Nigeria. Share your story with us聽鈥攚e鈥檇 love to hear from you!

Talk is cheap everywhere except Nigeria where you can be detained for publicly demanding good governance, even if you鈥檙e a child. 

On Thursday, August 1, Nigerians stormed the streets with placards, squeezed faces and loud voices that echoed the sound of a common frustration 鈥� hunger and economic hardship. Some of these Nigerians were old while others were young鈥� too young to be victims of bad governance. But most of them believed that everything that has gone to shit can be traced back to 

What started as a demand for change quickly turned violent, with security forces clashing violently with protesters across multiple states. The aftermath was ugly鈥攁t least lost their lives, including minors. Northern Nigeria has some of the worst cases of military and police violence 鈥� from live ammunition to tear gas. Media personnel weren鈥檛 spared either;were harassed for doing their jobs, and about were arrested across the country. 

What鈥檚 happening now?

76 of these arrested protesters appeared at the Federal High Court Abuja for their scheduled arraignment before Justice Obiora Egwuatu on Friday, November 1. They were accused of treason and conspiracy to destabilise Nigeria鈥攁 heavy accusation according to Section 96 of the Nigerian constitution and punishable under Section 97 of the Penal Code Act.

At least 67 of these arraigned protesters were minors who looked anything but dangerous. While they all looked malnourished, four of them looked weaker than others and were rushed out of the court after they slumped because they couldn鈥檛 stand on their feet. 

A few hours after their appearance in court, Justice Obiora Egwuatu put a big price tag on the freedom of the 67 minors of 鈧�10 million each. These children鈥攕ome barely 15鈥攏ow face the tough task of finding a surety, who must be a civil servant, to stand in for them.

What does the Constitution say about this?

The Constitution and the Child Rights Act make it clear that kids are not to be treated like adults in cases where the law is breached. In this case, there鈥檚 no evidence of these children being involved in the act of treason yet they have been subjected to a reality most kids their age would never know in their lifetime. 

Section 34 of the constitution promises everyone, minors included, the right to dignity and freedom from inhuman treatment. The Child Rights Act, adopted from the UN鈥檚 Convention on the Rights of the Child, stresses that detention for minors should be the absolute last resort鈥攁nd only for the shortest possible time. As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nigeria also agreed that minors should be given a shot at rehabilitation, not harsh judgment.  The law even demands that minors be kept in separate facilities from adults and prioritises juvenile courts for their cases, aiming for rehabilitation, not punishment.

So, with all this in black and white, you have to wonder why these kids, who look more like victims than villains, are sitting in adult courts and facing adult-size charges when there are laws that have been put in place to protect them. For now, it seems the law is being bent, stretched, or outrightly ignored to silence young Nigerians who dared to speak against bad governance. 

What can you do?

Today, 67 minors are facing outrageous charges, but it could be a lot worse tomorrow if we don鈥檛 speak against this abuse of law and power now. Nigerians are already the Federal High Court鈥檚 disturbing act, and the best way to act is to join the conversation. You can also fill out to let the Federal High Court know that Nigerians will not remain silent while minors are detained and slapped with a bail of 鈧�10 million.

There are reports that the governor of Akwa Ibom, Umo Eno, wants to transfer the role of the state鈥檚 First Lady to his daughter, Helen Eno Obareki and Nigerians have started dragging the governor for 鈥渁ppointing鈥� his daughter. While those reports are not entirely true, Governor Eno himself might be walking down a road that isn鈥檛 exactly constitutional. 

The Backstory

On September 26,, Patience Eno, to a sickness that’s yet to be disclosed. The unexpected death of the First Lady didn鈥檛 just throw the governor into a state of mourning, it also left him in a state of confusion 鈥� 鈥淲ho鈥檚 going to be the new First Lady of Akwa Ibom?鈥�

Typically, the role of a First Lady is reserved for the wives of governors and presidents. But Governor Eno has told the First Lady of Nigeria, Remi Tinubu, that he has no plan of replacing what he and Patience, who he was married to for 38 years, had. 

After cancelling the possibility of his remarrying, he told the First Lady that his daughter Helen would now have to work with 鈥渁ll her mothers鈥� in Akwa Ibom, including the deputy governor and the commissioner for Women’s Affairs.

So is the Akwa Ibom Governor transferring the First Lady role to his daughter? 

If you ask Governor Eno, he wouldn鈥檛 use the word 鈥渢ransferring鈥� because that would make the role of a First Lady look like Helen鈥檚 birthright, wouldn鈥檛 it? On Sunday, while at All Nations Christian Ministry in Akwa Ibom State, that the reports claiming that the First Lady role itself has been transferred to his daughter are not entirely true. According to Governor Eno, it鈥檚 the duties that are being transferred, not the title.

鈥淔irst ladies are not appointed. They come with the governor,鈥�

So if you鈥檙e wondering whether the people of Akwa Ibom would now have to call Helen their First Lady, the short answer is no. The long answer is that her father has given her other titles like the Senior Special Assistant to the Governor and the Coordinator, office of the First Lady.

The late First Lady had programs, like Golden Initiative for All and the ARISE Initiative for the Elderly,  which she actively ran before her death. Helen will now be in charge of running these programs and continuing the responsibilities of the deceased First Lady to the women of Akwa Ibom. 

Is this constitutionally allowed?

The Nigerian constitution doesn鈥檛 officially recognize the office of the first lady, nor does it assign any official role to the president or governor鈥檚 wife. It might come as a little bit of a surprise especially since every democratic administration has acted like it鈥檚 part of the package. There鈥檚 no official appointment or qualification for this role. The only qualification would be a nice ring and a governor or president鈥檚 surname.聽
Even though it鈥檚 not a thing constitutionally, there鈥檚 no legal barrier to him delegating responsibilities to his daughter in the absence of a First Lady. Remi Tinubu has also shown that n taking up this role so nothing is stopping her from being the coordinator of the First Lady鈥檚 office.

The Nigerian police are always averse to protests. But things took a different turn earlier today when the Lagos State government, through its official Twitter account, stated that the Lagos State police command has vowed to resist any protests in Lagos State, under any guise or “nomenclature”.

As expected, a lot of social media users were angry at the declaration. Many people referred to the constitution as supporting the rights of citizens to protests, and they went on about how the police and the Lagos State government were trying to stifle the rights of displeased Nigerian or protesters.

Curiously, we decided to look at the laws that guide assembly in Nigeria, including if and when the Nigerian police can put an end to protests in Nigeria. Just maybe the police and the Lagos State government were seeing some things we weren’t.

Read: Who Has Powers Over The Nigeria Police Force?

1. Section 40 of the Constition

The most important position of the law for anyone who wants to understand the position of Nigerian laws on protests is Section 39 and 40 of Nigeria’s 1999 constitution.

Section 39 of the constitution guarantees free speech while Section 40 of Nigeria’s 1999 the constitution states that:

Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular, he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or association for the protection of his interests.

This provision states simply that everyone is entitled to assembly freely and associate with other people.

However, Section 45 of the constitution states that any law against section 40 is valid if it is in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or in the interest of protecting the freedom of other people.

So, the only thing that can affect the right to hold a peaceful protest is if the government makes a law that restricts movement in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health or in the interest of protecting the freedom of other people.

But the laws on assembly are not finished.

2. Public Order Act of 2004

The “Public Order Act” was enacted in 2004.

Section 1(1) of the act gives a governor of a state the power to direct the conduct of any assembly on a public road or all public places of resort in the state, and prescribe the route any procession may pass.

Section 1 (2) also states that anyone who wants to convene any assembly or meeting or of forming any procession in Nigeria must have a licence to do so.

The person must first make an application for a licence to the governor not less than 48 hours before the assembly, and if the governor is satisfied that the assembly is not likely to cause a breach of the peace, he must direct any superior police officer to issue a licence, not less than 24 hours to the assembly, specifying the name of the licensee and defining the conditions on which the assembly to take place.

If he is not so satisfied, he must convey his refusal in the same manner to the applicant within the time stipulated.

Section 1 (4) of the Act also gives the governor the power to delegate his powers in relation to the whole state or part thereof, to the Commissioner of Police of the State or any superior police officer of a rank not below that of a Chief Superintendent of Police.

This means that a state governor has to give a licence before people can assemble in any state, and he can delegate his powers to the commissioner of police of the state.

But the position of the law is still not over with regards to protests.

3. All Nigeria People’s Party v. Inspector General of Police (2006)

In this case, t and challenged the constitutionality of the police permit under the Public Order Act after the police disrupted their rally.

At the Federal High Court, the Judge stated the Public Order Act is a violation of section 39 and 40 of the constitution, and chapter 11 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Right, and the law is a violation of the right of people’s assembly to free speech.

The judge agreed with Mr Falana, the lawyer for ANPP, that Nigeria’s criminal law should be used to prosecute violent protesters, but the rights to assemble cannot be taken away if they protest peacefully.

The judge conclusively stated that “sections 1(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6), of the Public Order Act are inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions in the 1999 Constitution and to the extent of their inconsistency, they are void. I hereby so declare.鈥�

4. In Conclusion

The Federal High Court has held, through a continuous order, that the Inspector-General of Police, whether by himself, his agents, privies and servants cannot prevent aggrieved citizens of Nigeria from organizing or convening peaceful assemblies, meetings and rallies against unpopular government measures and policies.

The Court of Appeal also held, on the same case, that permits for peaceful demonstrations are things of the past, and that protesting peacefully is part of the fundamental pillars of a democracy.

It is now a settled case that peaceful protests are guaranteed under the Nigerian constitution, and are an important part of Nigeria’s democracy. And they cannot be denied except in a situation where Nigeria or part of the country is in a special emergency like a disaster.

Quiz: What Are You Most Likely To Get Arrested For?

[donation]

Nigerians are wondering if we can vote for a new constitution.

The curiosity began, again, when Chileans on October 25, 2020, for a new constitution. 78% of Chileans voted in the referendum that the constitution should be re-written, and 79% voted that the constitution should be written by new writers elected by the people. Curiously, the “Chilean revolt” has gotten Nigerians wondering if we can also vote for a new constitution.

Read: Hello Nigerian Constitution, We Have Some Amendments To Suggest

What Is A Referendum?

A is a general vote by the people on a single political decision which has been referred to them for a direct decision.

A referendum can be a nationwide vote on whether a country should change its old constitution to a new constitution, or whether it should make a policy decision or not.

An example of a popular referendum in action is the “United Kingdom European Union Membership Referendum” of 2016, which is popularly known as the In that referendum, 52% of UK citizens voted to leave the European Union, and 48% voted that the UK should remain in the European Union.

The vote is binding, and the UK left the European Union on January 31st, 2020.

Can Nigerians Partake In A Referendum?

There is no provision in the Nigerian constitution that provides for a direct referendum in the constitution.

However, Section 14(a) of the Nigerian constitution states that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives all its powers and authorities”.

Section 14 (b) states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”.

Still, the constitution does not state exactly how the Nigerian people can vote to change or amend the constitution, or even for or against any political issue, even though it declares that “sovereignty belongs to the people”.

Read: How To Impeach An Incompetent President

Who Can Change The Constitution?

Under Nigerian laws, lawmakers have almost all the powers to amend the constitution. Section 8 and 9 of the constitution dictates the processes by which the constitution can be amended, most of which leaves the powers in the hands of the national assembly and state houses of assembly.

have recommended that Nigeria should set up a “National Referendum Commission”, going by the provisions of Section 14 of the constitution that “sovereignty belongs to the Nigerian people”, and even the government and the constitution derive their powers from the people.

Also, many democracies in the world for referendum in their constitution. Article 2(1) of the Romanian Constitution, for instance, provides that:

鈥淣ational Sovereignty belongs to the Romanian people who shall exercise it through their representative bodies, established as a result of free periodic and fair elections, as well as by means of a Referendum.鈥�

So, if Nigeria has referendums often, so many national issues can be easily solved like whether different Nigerian tribes still want to stay together as one or whether Nigerians want a particular government policy or not.

As it stands, lawmakers and political leaders make almost all the political decisions on behalf of the Nigerian people.

We hope you’ve learned a thing or two about how to unfuck yourself when the Nigerian government moves mad. Check back every weekday for more 91大神 Citizen explainers.

Hello, if you have been impacted by our work, please donate to 91大神. Cheers!

[donation]