Court Grants Bail to Sowore and Protesters Arrested During Abuja Demonstration

A magistrate court sitting in Kuje, Abuja, has granted bail to human rights activist Omoyele Sowore and 13 other individuals arrested during a protest demanding the release of detained separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu.

Magistrate Abubakar Umar Sai’id issued the bail order on Friday after the defendants were arraigned on charges relating to unlawful assembly and disturbance of public peace. The court granted each defendant bail in the sum of ₦500,000, subject to specific conditions.

Among those released on bail are Aloy Ejimakor, counsel for the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, brother of the IPOB leader, and 11 other protesters. The group had been arrested following their participation in the #FreeNnamdiKanuNow protest in the Federal Capital Territory on Monday, 20 October 2025.

The magistrate stipulated several conditions for the bail, requiring defendants to present verified National Identification Numbers to the court registrar. They must also provide three-year tax clearance certificates and submit their international passports as part of the bail terms.

Others granted bail alongside the activist include Joshua Emmanuel, Wilson Anyalewechi, Okere Kingdom Nnamdi, Clinton Chimeneze, Gabriel Joshua, Isiaka Husseini, Onyekachi Ferdinand, Amadi Prince, Edison Ojisom, Godwill Obioma, and Chima Onuchukwu. All were arrested in connection with the Monday demonstration.

Mr Sowore was arrested on Thursday shortly after leaving the premises of the Federal High Court in Abuja, where he had attended court proceedings. The publisher was detained for allegedly leading protesters into restricted areas of the capital in contravention of a court order.

The other protesters had been arrested on Monday during the demonstration and were subsequently remanded in custody on Tuesday by the magistrate court. They faced accusations of inciting public disturbance during the protest, which called for the release of the IPOB leader from detention.

Police authorities explained that the activist’s arrest stemmed from statements given by the 13 individuals previously detained in connection with the protest. Officers alleged that he had led demonstrators into zones designated as restricted areas, violating existing court restrictions on protest locations.

A Federal High Court had previously issued an interim order restraining the protesters from demonstrating in certain sensitive areas of Abuja. Justice Mohammed Umar barred demonstrations around the Aso Rock Presidential Villa, National Assembly complex, Force Headquarters, Court of Appeal, Eagle Square, and Shehu Shagari Way.

The injunction, granted through an ex parte motion moved by police counsel Wisdom Madaki on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, remained in effect pending the hearing of a motion on notice. The police force had sued Mr Sowore, Sahara Reporters Limited, and Sahara Reporters Media Foundation as respondents in the matter.

However, despite the court order restricting protest locations, demonstrators proceeded with their planned action on Monday, leading to the arrests and subsequent charges of unlawful assembly. The police maintained that the protesters violated the court’s directive by gathering in prohibited zones.

The #FreeNnamdiKanuNow protest represents the latest in a series of demonstrations calling for the release of the IPOB leader, who has been in detention since his arrest in June 2021. The separatist leader faces charges including terrorism and incitement to violence before the Federal High Court.

Mr Sowore, who publishes an online news platform and previously contested Nigeria’s presidential election, has been a prominent figure in civil rights activism for over three decades. He has frequently organised or participated in protests against government policies and in support of various causes.

The bail conditions imposed by the magistrate, particularly the requirement to surrender international passports, are standard provisions designed to ensure that defendants remain within the jurisdiction whilst their cases proceed through the courts. The tax clearance requirement demonstrates judicial efforts to ensure that bail applicants have fulfilled civic obligations.

The ₦500,000 bail sum represents a significant amount for many Nigerians but falls within typical ranges for charges of this nature. Legal observers noted that the magistrate appeared to balance concerns about ensuring defendants’ appearance at trial against their right to liberty pending the conclusion of proceedings.

Lawyers and supporters present at the court proceedings expressed satisfaction that bail was granted, though some raised concerns about the conditions attached. The requirement for tax clearance certificates, in particular, may prove challenging for some defendants to fulfil within the stipulated timeframe.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between authorities’ efforts to regulate public protests and activists’ assertions of their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and expression. Similar confrontations have occurred repeatedly in recent years as various groups have sought to demonstrate in the Federal Capital Territory.

Following the bail order, police officers reportedly re-arrested Mr Sowore outside the court premises moments after his release, according to witnesses at the scene. Lawyers and supporters alleged that the officers ignored the court’s decision and acted unlawfully in detaining him again immediately after bail had been granted.

The reported re-arrest, if confirmed, would represent a significant development that could generate further legal complications and public controversy. Such actions typically prompt accusations of contempt of court and violations of judicial orders, though authorities sometimes cite new offences or separate charges to justify fresh detentions.

The legal proceedings against the 14 defendants are expected to continue in the magistrate court, where they will face trial on the charges of unlawful assembly and disturbance of public peace. The prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants’ actions constituted criminal offences rather than legitimate exercise of constitutional rights.

Defence counsel are likely to argue that their clients were engaged in peaceful protest, a right guaranteed under Nigeria’s constitution, and that any restrictions imposed should be narrowly tailored and justified by compelling state interests. The outcome of the case may have implications for future protests and the extent to which authorities can limit demonstrations through court orders.

As the defendants work to meet bail conditions and secure their release from custody, attention will focus on whether all accused persons can satisfy the requirements, particularly regarding tax clearance certificates and international passport submission. Those unable to meet conditions will remain in detention pending trial.

The case reflects broader debates about civil liberties, protest rights, and government responses to dissent in Nigeria. Similar tensions have characterised interactions between activists and authorities across various administrations, with disagreements about appropriate balances between maintaining order and protecting fundamental freedoms.