For the second day running in Abuja, the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest was met by heavy police presence and blockades — and now the Nigeria Police...
For the second day running in Abuja, the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest was met by heavy police presence and blockades — and now the Nigeria Police Force is defending its actions. The force says they weren’t trying to suppress voices but were enforcing a valid court order preventing the demonstrators from accessing key government areas. It’s a scene that echoes past mass protests in Lagos when restrictions were placed ahead of major demonstrations.
The atmosphere in parts of Abuja turned tense as supporters of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), gathered for another day of protest. But this time, the Nigeria Police Force made clear they were acting on a court order — not merely policing unrest. According to the police public relations unit, a magistrate court had legally barred the protesters from moving into certain government precincts, and they were simply implementing that directive.
Spokespersons emphasised that their officers were present only to keep the peace and prevent the demonstration from spilling into restricted zones. They stated that the enforcement was not targeted at silencing political expression but at maintaining “public order and infrastructure protection.” The force further noted that while they respect citizens’ right to protest, that right has to be balanced with other legal and safety considerations.
Nevertheless, several activists counter-argue that the order was vague and possibly politically motivated, raising questions about how freely citizens can exercise their protest rights. A key voice in this camp, another protest organiser, claimed the court order was not communicated clearly to the wider public and that gathering in approved zones was still being met with heavy handedness.
It’s a dynamic familiar to Nigerians: during the #EndSARS movement a few years ago, police response and court orders featured heavily in debates about civil liberties. In this latest incident, the police assert that armored vehicles, checkpoints and barricades were necessary. They say their intention was not to confront protesters but to enforce legal boundaries as defined by the judiciary.
The development has stirred further concern in the southeast region, where Kanu has strong support. Many feel that the legal order and enforcement reflect deeper tensions — between the state and a movement whose grievances are rooted in perceived marginalisation. For observers, the question now centres on whether the enforcement will ease or whether this protest becomes a flash-point.