‘No Governor Can Criminalise Political Opinion’, ADC Tells Zulum

A fresh political confrontation is unfolding in Borno State after the African Democratic Congress Presidential Campaign Council challenged Governor Babagana Zulum to explain a viral video in which he was allegedly heard warning that people expressing the slogan “Tinubu Must Go” would be arrested and detained.

The development has reopened an increasingly contentious debate over political expression in Borno, coming only days after five men were arrested and arraigned in Maiduguri in connection with T-shirts bearing the same slogan.

The ADC Presidential Campaign Council, through its Director of Strategic Communications, Phrank Shaibu, described the alleged threat as an assault on democratic rights and demanded an explanation from the governor.

What Zulum said, and what ADC is challenging

The controversy centres on a video circulating online in which Zulum was allegedly speaking in Hausa and warning that people involved in activities capable of causing disorder would be arrested and detained.

The ADC interpreted the remarks as a threat directed at people using the “Tinubu Must Go” slogan.

However, the governor’s broader comments, as reported, also referred to people he accused of using group identities, weapons and political activities to cause disturbances in Maiduguri.

Zulum warned that authorities would take action against individuals he believed were threatening public peace.

ValidViewNetwork reports, the distinction is important because the available reports do not establish that every person wearing a “Tinubu Must Go” shirt has been ordered arrested simply because of the slogan.

Zulum previously denied ordering arrests

The latest controversy follows Zulum’s categorical denial on October 2 that he ordered the arrest of five people detained by police in Maiduguri.

The governor said he was shocked that the arrests had been linked to his administration, insisting that he had neither authorised nor directed the police to detain opposition supporters or people criticising his government.

ADVERTISEMENT

The five men were subsequently arraigned on charges including criminal conspiracy, inciting disturbance, disturbance of public peace and thuggery. They pleaded not guilty.

The police have also denied that the men were arrested merely for wearing anti-Tinubu shirts.

According to the police account, officers encountered them during a patrol and allegedly recovered suspected cannabis, tablets, a shisha pot, scissors and the shirts. The suspects face charges relating to alleged disturbance, public peace, thuggery and suspected drug possession.

The ADC disputes that account and has questioned whether the political message on the shirts was the real reason for the arrests.

ADC demands clarity

Shaibu said the governor should reconcile the latest video with his earlier denial. The opposition campaign council argued that peaceful political criticism should not itself constitute a criminal offence and urged authorities to prosecute any genuine criminal conduct through due process rather than use other allegations as a cover for suppressing political expression.

ValidViewNetwork reports, the dispute now has two separate questions that must not be conflated: whether anyone committed an offence during the protests, and whether citizens can lawfully be arrested merely for expressing opposition to the President.

The first is a matter for evidence and the courts. The second raises a constitutional question about freedom of expression and peaceful political participation.

The situation remains fluid as more youths have reportedly appeared in Maiduguri wearing “Tinubu Must Go” shirts, turning the earlier arrests into a wider political confrontation.

The five men have pleaded not guilty, with a ruling on their bail application expected on October 6 and the substantive case scheduled for October 26.

ValidViewNetwork reports, the latest developments should therefore be followed closely, particularly for an official response from Governor Zulum clarifying whether his latest remarks were directed at peaceful political expression itself or at activities he considers capable of causing violence or disorder.

The proper test in a democracy is straightforward: where a citizen commits a criminal offence, the law should take its course; where a citizen merely expresses a political opinion peacefully, the same law must protect that right.