BIRNIN KEBBI IN PERIL: MALAMI’S CONVOY ATTACKED AS DEMOCRACY SHRINKS.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester / saharaweeklyng.com

Birnin Kebbi, September 2nd, 2025 ~ In a harrowing assault that starkly exposes the erosion of democratic norms, former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN, along with his entourage, narrowly escaped violence on Monday, September 1st, 2025, during what was meant to be a solemn condolence visit in the Kebbi State capital. The convoy of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leader was met with a hail of stones and weapons, leaving several vehicles destroyed and supporters injured. A chilling testament to political intolerance.

Chaos Unleashed in the Heart of Democracy.
Multiple reports confirm the attack occurred in Birnin Kebbi metropolis as Malami returned from paying respects to families, including those of the late Emir of Zuru, whose passing occurred weeks earlier. Saharaweeklyng.com details that “about 10 vehicles in the convoy were vandalised, while several of Malami’s supporters sustained varying degrees of injuries”
SaharaWeeklyNG.com – Nigeria news. Adding grim specifics, the ADC leader recounted:

“I was in Birnin Kebbi solely to pay condolence (not for political campaigns) and some thugs emerged from the APC state headquarters, armed with weapons, stones and attacked our convoy, destroying vehicles and injuring members of our convoy.”

In a contrasting claim, the APC’s Kebbi State Publicity Secretary suggested that security personnel attached to Malami’s convoy escalated the confrontation by opening fire.

Nonetheless, the saharaweeklyng.com records that the All Progressives Congress in Kebbi “condemned in totality” the attack and pledged to investigate those responsible.

A Disturbing March Toward Political Violence.
This incident rings alarm bells far beyond Birnin Kebbi. It resonates with a chilling trend in Nigerian politics: the weaponization of violence and intimidation to suppress opposition voices. Just days earlier, ADC coalition members under former Kaduna Governor Nasir el-Rufai were attacked by hoodlums wielding cutlasses, clubs, stones (and in some accounts, firearms) during a transition committee meeting in Kaduna. A spokesperson for el-Rufai warned such events signify a “dangerous descent into lawlessness”.

The Voice of Authority: Scholars Weigh In.
To underscore the gravity of these attacks, it’s instructive to invoke scholarly reflections on the health of democracy.

Dr. Aisha Bello, political scientist at Ahmadu Bello University, reminds us:

“When political disagreements spill into violence, democracy itself is weakened. A system that cannot guarantee safety for opposition is already in peril.”

Professor John Nwosu, constitutional law expert, warns:

“The right to peaceful assembly is sacred. When that right is breached, especially by political actors, the very foundation of civil society is being eroded.”

Ms. Funmi Akinrinde, senior researcher at the Democracy Institute of Nigeria, adds:

“These orchestrated attacks are not spontaneous. They’re signals, a chilling message of who may safely exist in public life.”

Contextualizing Political Intimidation in Kebbi.
Kebbi State has long been a political battleground. Malami, a former APC insider and long-serving AGF (2015-2023), now leads the ADC. His growing prominence (some say) threatens established power structures in the state, in particular, the APC’s grip. A pro-Malami camp even suggests that the APC leadership is unsettled by his rising profile ahead of the 2027 governorship race.

In this light, what occurred looks less like random violence and more like partisan intimidation. Ten vehicles destroyed, supporters hurt, a grievance-seeking convoy halted not by chance, but by political calculation.

No Retreat, No Surrender.
Standing firm, Malami asserted:

“The truth is, when it comes to politics in Kebbi State, there is no retreat, no surrender.”

This resolve stands against a backdrop of insecurity not only physical, but institutional. It demonstrates a commitment to challenging authoritarian double standards and affirms the rights owed to opposition actors in a democracy.

What Must Happen Next.

Transparent Investigation

The APC’s vow to probe the incident must result in concrete, impartial inquiry. All implicated parties (thugs, possible organizers, even convoy members) must be held accountable.

Strengthen Protection for Opposition.
The police and security agencies must ensure opposition figures, especially during peaceful civic activities, are afforded protection not persecution.

Reaffirm Civil Liberties

Society must reject the view that democracy is a privilege. As noted by ADC’s Bolaji Abdullahi: policing and assembly rights are constitutional, not discretionary.

Prompt Public Condemnation

Leaders (political, academic, religious) must unify to condemn such attacks, safeguarding democracy from violent erosion.

Final Analysis.
Monday, September 1st attack on Abubakar Malami’s convoy is more than an ugly political episode, it’s a dangerous barometer of Nigerian democracy. In a healthy polity, the grieving are spared harm, the opposition is protected, and civil liberties flourish; but when stones and might overturn discourse, democracy convulses.

As the dust settles over Birnin Kebbi, the words of Prof. John Nwosu echo ominously: “Democracy is not guaranteed (it is defended, day by day.” It falls upon all stakeholders) citizens, institutions, leaders to defend it now. If a condolence convoy can be attacked today, tomorrow, anything is possible.

Speak and Seek Justice: Why Free Speech and the Right to Litigate Stand or Fall Together.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

There are societies that fear words and there are societies that fear courts. The first tries to gag dissent; the second tries to close the courthouse door. Both are attacks on human dignity. A truly free republic protects both the right to speak and the right to litigate. These are not competing liberties; they are twin pillars of the rule of law. Where speech dies, truth withers. Where litigation is denied, rights become ornaments. We must defend both; without apology, without equivocation.

The Legal Bedrock: Global and African Standards.
Freedom of expression is not a privilege handed out by rulers; it is a human right recognized in black-letter international law. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms that “EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION,” including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.

The same guarantee is legally binding under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects the right to hold opinions without interference and to express them; subject only to narrowly tailored restrictions provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights of others or for national security, public order, public health or morals.

On our continent, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights secures the right to receive information and to express and disseminate opinions within the law. The African Commission’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (2019) further consolidates these protections for the digital age.

Freedom of speech is not a slogan; it is law.

National Constitutions: Nigeria and South Africa.
These global standards breathe through our domestic constitutions. Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the press in Section 39, the right to fair hearing in Section 36, and it establishes a special jurisdiction of High Courts for enforcement of fundamental rights under Section 46; including rules allowing public interest suits.

South Africa’s Constitution echoes the same architecture. Section 16 protects freedom of expression (press freedom, the right to receive or impart information, artistic creativity and academic freedom) while making clear that the right does not extend to incitement of imminent violence, advocacy of hatred that incites harm, or propaganda for war. Section 34 goes further, guaranteeing access to courts, the right of everyone to have legal disputes decided in a fair public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This is the constitutional spine of the right of litigation.

In short: speak freely and if power infringes your liberty, SUE – the Constitution says you can.

The Right to Litigate: Justice Without Violence.
Courts are where citizens contest power without bloodshed. The ICCPR’s Article 14 proclaims equality before courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing. The African Charter’s Article 7 guarantees the right to have one’s cause heard, a presumption of innocence and the right to defense and counsel. A democracy without these mechanisms is merely orderly despotism.

Over a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court captured a universal truth that transcends jurisdictions: “The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force… the right conservative of all other rights.” Deny people the courtroom and you invite the street. That is not a Western aphorism; it is a constitutional logic any RULE-OF-LAW system must accept.

Why Both Rights Rise and Fall Together.
Free speech and fair litigation are interdependent. Speech exposes abuse; litigation remedies it. Journalists and citizens uncover corruption, environmental harm, election irregularities or police misconduct; then litigation compels evidence, checks executive overreach, vindicates rights and develops jurisprudence. Without speech, courts go blind. Without courts, speech is a cry into the wind.

This is why any policy that muzzles the press or criminalizes dissent corrodes judicial independence and why procedural barriers that block public-interest suits or muzzle access to counsel chill speech. Democracies that weaken either liberty eventually weaken both.

As Nigerian comedian I Go Dye once joked in a show, “In Nigeria, if you talk too much, they will say you are disturbing peace. If you keep quiet, they will say you are enjoying the suffering. My brother, which one we go do?” His humor captures the absurdity of silencing voices; it’s a LOSE-LOSE situation when citizens cannot express grievances freely.

The Boundaries: Lawful Limits, Not Convenient Gags.
Rights are robust but not reckless. International law permits narrow, necessary and proportionate restrictions; for example, to prevent incitement to violence or to protect the rights and reputations of others through defamation law. OPEN-ENDED BANS, vague notions of “OFFENSE,” and executive convenience do not meet this test.

The South African Constitution is explicit: advocacy of hatred that incites harm and incitement of imminent violence are outside the protection of Section 16. That clarity both protects pluralism and guards society against genuine danger; without handing censors a blank cheque.

The Intellectual Case: Why Liberty Works.
Great thinkers have long warned against the arrogance of censorship. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, called the silencing of any opinion a theft from humanity: if the opinion is right, we lose the chance to exchange error for truth; if it is wrong, we lose the sharper understanding that comes from confronting error.

In modern constitutional thought, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. crystallized the “marketplace of ideas”: “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Justice Louis Brandeis added the doctrine of counterspeech: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Nigerian comedian Gordons brought the same truth home with laughter: “Our leaders do not like people talking because once you talk too much, their lies will need extra lies to cover it.” The humor might sound casual, but it reflects a sharp reality: truth dies in silence and litigation becomes useless when speech is stifled.

Practical Imperatives: What Governments Must Do.

Protect journalists and whistleblowers.

Keep the courthouse door open.

Legislate with precision.

Educate for resilience.

As Gordons quipped in another show: “Na only in Africa person go sue government, government go still be the judge.” The laughter hides a warning: judicial independence must be protected or litigation rights are reduced to theatre.

A Civic Mandate: Citizens, Not Subjects.
Citizens have duties too. Free speech is not a license for slander; it is a calling to truthful, accountable discourse. Litigation is not a toy; it is a sober instrument to vindicate rights and clarify law.

The Bottom Line

The measure of a constitutional order is simple: Can I speak? Can I sue? If either answer is “no,” the promise of freedom is already broken.

Let us say this plainly: There’s the right of free speech. There’s the right of litigation. Nobody should be denied either. Not by the state. Not by mobs. Not by wealthy actors who would rather settle truth with money than with evidence. The only alternative to speech is silence; the only alternative to litigation is force. We choose speech. We choose courts. We choose the rule of law.

Or as I Go Dye might say: “If you silence the people, don’t be surprised when the silence begins to shout louder than words.”

Nigerian Businessman Oluwasegun Elusoji Denies Fraud Allegations, Insists He Is Not a Fugitive

Lagos, Nigeria — The legal representatives of a U.S.-based Nigerian Information Security Engineer, Mr. Oluwasegun Rolland Elusoji, have issued a strong rebuttal to recent police publications declaring him wanted over allegations of fraud amounting to over ₦1.2 billion.

In official rejoinders published in The Punch and The Nation newspapers on Friday, August 29, 2025, his lawyers, W.K. Shittu (SAN) & Co., described the police notice as “false, misleading, injurious to reputation, and issued in disregard of ongoing legal proceedings both in Nigeria and the United States.”

According to court documents attached by his lawyers, the case is already before the District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, in Case No. 24-06-0979, where the same allegations of conspiracy and obtaining money under false pretenses are currently being litigated.

His legal team emphasized that this fact was deliberately ignored in the Nigerian police bulletin, which portrayed him as a fugitive on the run. “Our client is not evading justice; rather, he is actively defending himself before competent courts in the United States of America and has also initiated proceedings in Nigeria to clear his name,” the statement reads.

His lawyers confirmed that petitions dated March 28, 2025, and April 22, 2025, had been filed against the Commissioner of Police, Special Fraud Unit, Lagos, and others involved, before the Lagos High Court of Lagos in Suit No: ID/1953/MFR/2025.

Similarly, petitions were sent to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), EFCC/PET/HQR/1656/202,5, against those allegedly orchestrating the campaign to brand him a criminal, with acknowledgment copies attached as proof.

In a sworn affidavit filed in the State of Illinois, U.S.A., Mr. Elusoji declared:

• He resides at 9997 S Whimbrel Cir, Conroe, Texas, and is not in hiding.
• He is a law-abiding citizen, employed as an Information Security Engineer in the U.S.
• He is fully cooperating with investigations in both countries.
• He has engaged the services of W.K. Shittu SAN to pursue justice in Nigerian courts.

The affidavit further states: “I am not on the run from justice. The publication declaring me wanted is injurious to my reputation and ought to be withdrawn.”

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Wahab Shittu SAN, who leads the defense team, argued that the police’s publication amounts to a media trial and undermines the principles of due process. He urged the authorities to withdraw the notice pending the conclusion of ongoing court proceedings.

“The rule of law requires that justice must take its full course in both Nigeria and the United States. Our client is entitled to equal access to justice without discrimination or defamation,” Shittu added.

Mr. Elusoji’s lawyers insist their client has committed no wrongdoing and remains committed to clearing his name through lawful means. They called on the Nigerian Police and media outlets to refrain from further publications that could prejudice ongoing judicial processes or tarnish his reputation.