Opinion
Police Permit Not Required For Rallies In Nigeria
In January 2012, the mass protests against the so-called
removal of fuel subsidy were violently disrupted by the police and the army personnel. During its recent industrial action the Academic Staff Union of Universities had cause to direct its members to embark on protests to draw public attention to the underfunding of public universities in Nigeria. The Police dispersed the protesting academics with tear gas. A fortnight ago, a political rally in Port Harcourt, Rivers State was brutally suppressed by the Police. In justifying the violent attack, Mr. Joseph Mbu, the Rivers State Commissioner of Police claimed that the rally was unauthorized, as the conveners did not obtain police permit. Since the disruption of public meetings and rallies is an infringement of the fundamental right of Nigerians to freedom of association, assembly and expression, it is pertinent to draw the attention of the authorities to the state of the law on public meetings.
Under the Public Order Act (Cap P42) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 the power to regulate public meetings, processions and rallies in any part of Nigeria was exclusively vested in the governors of the respective States of the Federation. Thus, by virtue of Section 1 of the Act, the Commissioner of Police or any other police officer could not issue a licence or permit for any meeting or rally without the authority of the governor. In other words, no police officer was competent to issue a permit for holding any public meeting or rallies or cancel any such public meeting or rally without the authority of the governor of a State.
In the case of All Nigeria Peoples Party & Ors. v. Inspector General of Police (2006) CHR 181,the Plaintiffs being registered political parties requested the Defendant, the Inspector-General by a letter dated 21st May, 2003 to issue Police Permits to their members to hold unity rallies throughout the country to protest the rigging of the 2003 elections. The request was refused. There was a violent disruption of the rally organized in Kano on the 22nd of September, 2003 on the ground that no police permit was obtained.
In a suit filed at the Federal High Court against the Inspector-General of Police, the Plaintiffs challenged the constitutional validity of Police permit under the Public Order Act and the violent disruption of the rally. In defending the action, the Defendant contended that the conveners of the rally did not obtain a Police permit. In dismissing the contention of the Police, the trial judge, the Honourable Justice Chinyere stated inter alia:
“The gist of the provision in Section 1 of the Act is that the Governor of each State is empowered to direct the conduct of all assemblies, meetings and processions on public roads or places of public resort in the State and prescribe the route by which and times at which the procession may pass. Persons desirous of convening any assembly or meeting or of forming a procession in any public resort must apply and obtain the license of the Governor. The Governor can delegate his powers to the Commissioner of Police of the State or to other police officers. Persons aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Police may appeal to the Governor and the decision of the Governor shall be final and no further appeal shall lie therefrom.”
On the inconsistency of police permit with Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the learned trial judge said:
“In my view, the provision in Section 40 of the Constitution is clear, direct and unambiguous. It is formulated and designed to confer on every person the right to assemble freely and associate with other persons. I am therefore persuaded by the argument of Mr. Falana that by the combined effect of Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution as well as Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the right to assemble freely cannot be violated without violating the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and association. I agree with Mr. Falana that violation can only be done by the procedure permitted by law, under Section 45 of the Constitution, in which case there must be a state of emergency properly declared before theses rights can be violated.
I also agree with Mr. Falana that the criminal law is there to take care if protesters resort to violence in the course of demonstration and that once the rights are exercised peacefully, they cannot be taken away.
The Public Order Act so far as it affects the right of citizens to assemble freely and associate with others, the sum of which is the right to hold rallies or processions or demonstration, is an aberration to a democratic society. It is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution. In particular, Sections 1(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6), 2, 3 and 4 are inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions in the 1999 Constitution and to the extent of their inconsistency, they are void. I hereby so declare.”
After declaring the provisions of the Public Order Act which require police permit for public meetings and rallies illegal and unconstitutional, the Federal High Court proceeded to grant the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that the requirement of police permit or other authority for the holding of rallies or processions in Nigeria is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
2. A DECLARATION that the provisions of the Public Order Act (Cap 382) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 which require police permit or any other authority for the holding of rallies or processions in any part of Nigeria is illegal and unconstitutional as they contravene section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
3. A DECLARATION that the Defendant is not competent under the Public Order Act (Cap 382) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 or under any law whatever to issue or grant permit for the holding of rallies or processions in any part of Nigeria.
4. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendant (the Inspector-General of Police) whether by himself, his agents, privies and servants from further preventing the Plaintiffs and other aggrieved citizens of Nigeria from organizing or convening peaceful assemblies, meetings and rallies against unpopular government measures and policies.”
Completely dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal High Court on the issuance of Police permit, the Inspector-General of Police appealed to the Court of Appeal. Upon hearing the case, the Justices of the Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court. With respect to the powers of governors to authorize the issuance of permit for holding public meetings and rallies in their States, Olufunmilayo Adekeye JCA (as she then was) had this to say:
“On a proper perusal of the provisions particularly section 1 subsection 1-6, and sections 2-4 there is no where the name of the Inspector General is mentioned in connection with the issuance of permit for the purpose of conducting peaceful public assemblies. Such application is to be forwarded to the Governor within forty-eight hours of holding such. The Governor may delegate his powers under the Act to the Commissioner of Police of the State or any superior police officer of a rank not below that of a Chief Superintendent of Police as applicable to this case in hand.”
To be continued
Falana (SAN) is a human rights lawyer
Femi Falana
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
