Court Ruling Against Police Overreach in Kaduna
A Kaduna State High Court has ruled that a bid by the Commissioner of Police to suspend all political meetings and rallies across the state was unlawful, unconstitutional, and amounted to a gross abuse of power. The court further ordered the police to pay N15 million in damages to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) for the violation of its fundamental rights.
Delivering the judgment on Wednesday, Justice Murtala J. Zubairu held that the police acted beyond their legal mandate by seeking judicial authority to impose a blanket ban on political activities. He warned that such conduct cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy.
The case, marked KDH/KAD/NPF/1315/2025, was filed on September 4, 2025, by the Commissioner of Police against the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The police sought to halt political gatherings pending investigations into alleged threats of violence.
However, the court dismissed the suit as incompetent and politically motivated and instead upheld a counterclaim by the SDP, which accused the police of acting with bias, breaching their statutory responsibilities, and attempting to suppress opposition voices.
“The notion that the police can indefinitely suspend the fundamental rights of association and assembly of every political party in a state is an overreach and constitutes an abuse of statutory powers. The duty of the police is to provide security for peaceful assemblies, not to ban them preemptively based on vague fears or speculative intelligence,” Justice Zubairu declared.
He emphasized that the 1999 Constitution guarantees citizens’ freedom of association and assembly under Section 40, and that the Police Act 2020 does not override those protections.
“The Applicant’s reliance on the Police Act 2020 cannot override Section 40 of the Constitution… To do otherwise would be an invitation to anarchy and a breach of the social contract,” he said.
Citing legal precedents, including Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (2007) and All Progressives Congress v. Inspector-General of Police (2014), the court reinforced that the police have no legal grounds to prohibit peaceful political gatherings.
In its counterclaim against the police application, the SDP informed the court that it was not responsible for the August 30 violence referenced by the police but rather a victim of it. The party said it had previously warned the police, via a petition dated August 14, about the recruitment of political thugs by the ruling party. The petition, the party claimed, was ignored.
The party also argued that the meeting scheduled for September 4, the very event the police sought to suspend, was not a political rally but “a peaceful commiseration visit.”
Justice Zubairu agreed with the SDP’s account, stating, “The evidence before this court shows a clear abdication of duty by the applicant (police). Rather than protect the victims of the August 30 incident, the police sought judicial cover to curtail their rights. This is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.”
The court found that the police breached their obligations under Sections 4, 83, and 84 of the Police Act 2020, which mandate law enforcement to provide adequate security for assemblies and processions.
Additionally, the court set aside an interim injunction earlier obtained by the police, noting that it was granted without the required undertaking as to damages, violating the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kotoye v CBN (1989).
“The ex parte order obtained without the required undertaking is irregular, oppressive, and contrary to law. The resulting injury to the respondents must be compensated,” the judge ruled.
The court awarded the SDP N15 million in damages, broken down as N5 million for the arbitrary suspension of the party’s meeting, N5 million for the wrongful injunction, and N5 million for the police’s failure to investigate the August 30 attack.
Justice Zubairu further directed the police to investigate all pending petitions and submit a comprehensive report to the Attorney-General of Kaduna State within 60 days.
Judicial Victory for Rule of Law
But reacting, a chieftain of the ADC and commissioner during the administration of Nasir El-Rufai, Hafsat Baba, described the recent court judgement involving the party as a welcome development, saying it reinforces the principle of justice and the rule of law.
Hafsat Baba expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the case, noting that it signals a positive shift in the judicial process where justice can be attained regardless of political power or influence.
“So I believe that this is something that everybody will be happy about,” she said. “Because that means once somebody takes you to court, it doesn’t matter whether he’s in power or not; you can get judgement.”
Baba emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law to prevent incidents of political interference and abuse of power.
“It is when we follow the law that a lot of these things can be avoided. But we believe that some people think they can just break the law and get away with it. No. For me, I believe that justice has been served.”
She also called on security agencies to stay within the limits of their responsibilities, urging them to avoid interfering in political matters.
“This judgement should serve as a deterrent to any of the security agencies. Their main responsibility is to protect life and property. Whether a political party is in power or not, their meetings should follow due process and be adequately protected.”
Hafsat Baba reiterated that the ADC is a party committed to peace and lawful conduct.
“ADC is the party of law-abiding citizens. We were never there to cause any problem,” she said.
Origins of the Conflict
The controversy stems from an attack on an ADC meeting allegedly targeted at El-Rufai two months ago by suspected political thugs that invaded the venue of a political gathering at NUT Endwell Hotel in Kaduna metropolis.
The thugs smashed windows, vandalised vehicles, and injured party members, despite the presence of police officers.
El-Rufai, a member of the SDP and one of the leaders in the coalition that adopted the ADC as its party, was at the venue to inaugurate a coalition transition committee. He accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of masterminding the attack.
But the APC denied involvement. Its state secretary, Yahaya Baba-Pate, said, “APC is a law-abiding political party. We don’t engage in thuggery, and we don’t support thuggery. We believe in the tenets of democracy. We can never belittle ourselves and engage in such an unlawful act.”
He further argued that there was no opposition in Kaduna because Governor Uba Sani was delivering on his campaign promises in education, health, infrastructure, rural development, security, and inclusiveness.
Police Invites and Allegations
A few days after the attack, the Kaduna State Police Command invited El-Rufai and several ADC leaders over allegations of criminal conspiracy, inciting disturbance of public peace, mischief, and causing grievous hurt.
The invitation letter with reference number CR:3000/KDS/X/D4/vOL.120/199, signed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, CID, Uzairu Abdullahi, and addressed to the ADC Chairman, directed the party to produce the listed members at the SCID for questioning on September 8.
Those invited include Nasir El-Rufai, Bashir Sa’idu, Jafaru Sani, Ubaidullah Mohammed (a.k.a. 30), Nasiru Maikano, Aminu Abita, and Ahmed Rufa’i Hussaini (a.k.a. Mikiya).
El-Rufai later petitioned the Police Service Commission (PSC) against alleged unprofessional conduct, abuse of office, and violations of the Police Act by some Kaduna police officers.
His media adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye, said in a statement that El-Rufai had also petitioned the Inspector-General of Police over what he described as “egregiously unlawful acts” since the resumption of the current Kaduna Commissioner of Police on December 30, 2024.
The petition detailed the particulars of the complaint and requested an immediate, impartial, and exhaustive investigation into the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct of the Commissioner of Police and some officers of the Kaduna State Police Command.
But while the petition was pending, the Kaduna police commissioner approached the court to seek prohibitory orders to suspend all political rallies, meetings, and assemblies by the ADC, SDP and all other political parties in Kaduna State, pending the conclusion of police investigations into alleged threats of violence.
The SDP, however, challenged the suit and filed a counterclaim seeking declarations and damages for the breach of their fundamental rights and statutory duties by the police.
