- Sowore talked himself into trouble. But the state reaction was out of tune with democracy
The aftermath of the August 5 “Revolution Now” protests appears dire for the participants. Omoyele Sowore, the convener of the protest, is detained by the Department of State Srvices (DSS), the secret police. The DSS approached the courts to hold Sowore for 90 days. It got the nod to hold him for 45 days. Also, arrested protesters have been charged to court for “treasonable felony”. It is a grim aftermath — and just as well.
In a democracy, with citizens’ rights entrenched in the constitution, the right to protest is guaranteed. No government, that derives life and draws its continuous legitimacy from that grundnorm, can take that right away. So, Sowore and his group, just like any other citizens, group or individual, have the right to protest. That, it must be repeated again, cannot be taken away. Otherwise the democratic order would be a sham.
But having a right to protest is not the same as unfettered right to unleashing incendiary rhetoric; which may bait the starry-eyed, in the passion of the moment, to cross the line between legal right and serious felony. This danger is especially rife, given the current high tension in the land. Should that happen, not a few would be put in harm’s way.
Sowore has been condemned for breaching security with a call for revolution. Hear him: “I’m not talking of protest. I’m embarking on revolution. Eighty-five per cent of Nigerians are in support. Don’t tell me about legal implications or what a judge will say. I don’t care. We must bundle Buhari out of that place.” Such recklessness!
That rhetoric was not helped by Sowore, captured on a video clip his group released, claiming by the time his “revolution” was done, the present order would cease to exist; suggesting a section of the DSS had allegedly bought into the plot; and claiming the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, the El-Zakzaky group just proscribed for alleged terrorism, had also thrown in their hat into the protest ring.
That was highly reckless and condemnable. We agree though with a section of the human rights community that has condemned the arrest of Sowore two days before the protest. It is hard to fault the government on the Sowore arrest, even if strictly, as a proactive step.
Still, the protest came and it ended an anti-climax; as it was shunned by the bulk of the people. Was that because the government took out the wind from its sail by revving up its own security machine? All the government had to do was allow the protests go on so long as it did not morph into lawlessness. Critics like Professor Wole Soyinka and Barrister Femi Falana as well as the human rights community scored for democracy and decency in their comments. On their own ideological temper — citizen liberty, no matter what — they cannot be faulted.
Still, the protest showed Sowore was all bluff and bluster. Neither he nor the group he leads appears to have the capacity to levy war against the state, to consummate their “revolution”. Which is why the state should tread softly on charges of “treasonable felony” or “treason” being bandied around. That would appear an over-kill.
Sowore talked himself into trouble. But beyond that bluster, he would appear in no position to lead a “revolution” — “now” or then; except, of course, the state has further evidence, hidden from the public. As security watchdogs, the DSS ought to know better. Revolutions are not carried out on rhetorics, especially empty ones.
It is therefore time to move on, to avert the mismanagement of a revolution-that-was-not; and prevent it fuelling further but needless crisis in the land. It’s time to bring down the high temperature.
However, since the matter is now in court, the judiciary should play the perfect arbiter, leading to an ease of tension. After all the tempest, it is time for calm and moderation.
But the Sowore case should school citizens on how to press their rights, without setting themselves up for an impulsive crackdown. Such recklessness could erode citizens’ right and expose a dictatorial order in a democracy.
