Nigerian Human rights activist and Publisher of SaharaReporters, Omoyele Sowore, on Wednesday arrived at the Nigeria Police Force Headquarters in Abuja carrying a travel bag, as he honoured a controversial invitation from the Inspector General of Police’s Monitoring Unit over a petition reportedly filed against him.
Sowore, who arrived at exactly 12:16 p.m., was accompanied by his lawyers, Barristers A.K. Musa and Marshal Abubakar, along with a crowd of supporters chanting anti-government and anti-Kayode Egbetokun songs.
His visibly packed travel bag contained personal essentials — including toothpaste, toothbrush, soap, clothing, books, and other items — a symbolic gesture suggesting he was prepared for possible detention.
Tensions escalated as members of the Take It Back Movement and other allied activist groups issued a two-hour ultimatum to the police to either release Sowore or face mass resistance.
“If they refuse to release Sowore, then they must arrest us with him. We are not going to leave here. This is 12:16 p.m., and after two hours, if they fail to release him, then they have to arrest all of us,” declared Princess Mikky, convener of #NUDE NIGERIA.
Also speaking, Rex Elanu of the Take It Back Movement described the invitation as “a vendetta by the IGP” and accused the police of orchestrating a witch-hunt.
“It is shameful that the Inspector General of Police has resorted to vendetta against Sowore, who has consistently spoken truth to power. We will continue to liberate Nigerians from the bondage of bad governance, including that of the Nigeria Police,” he said.
The protest leaders further called on Nigerians to resist what they described as illegality and political persecution.
Sowore had earlier rejected the police’s invitation, describing it as “defective and riddled with legal errors,” casting doubt on its validity.
The original allegation against him — “inciting disturbance,” a term not recognised under Nigerian law — was later replaced with “forgery and criminal defamation.”
However, the police have yet to provide any legal documents or disclose the identity of the petitioner behind the complaint.
Critics say the case reflects a pattern of state harassment against dissenting voices and further undermines public confidence in the rule of law.
