Sowore’s Provocation, Onanuga’s Plea and the DSS Overreach
By Kabir Abdulsalam,
Last week, Nigerians were treated to a spectacle that combined activism, officialdom, social media virality, and the heavy hand of the state security apparatus. At the centre of it all were two men who, in different times and in different ways, have both used the power of the pen against authority: Omoyele Sowore, the activist-journalist, and Bayo Onanuga, now the presidential spokesman.
Sowore has always thrived on provocation. His Sahara Reporters was built on the premise that no leader is too sacred for ridicule. His language is direct, often laced with words that infuriate those in power. Onanuga, on the other hand, was once on the radical side of Nigerian journalism, co-founding The News and Tempo in the 1990s, only to later accept the role of explaining and defending presidential utterances. This time, their worlds collided over President Bola Tinubu’s remarks in Brazil.
Tinubu had reportedly said that there was “no more corruption” in the sourcing of foreign exchange. Sowore wasted no time interpreting this as a blanket claim that corruption had vanished in Nigeria under Tinubu’s watch. He fired a Facebook post calling the president a “criminal,” dismissing the statement as shameless lying.
To the DSS, the Department of State Security, this was not free speech but incitement, hate speech, cybercrime, and even domestic terrorism. Within hours, the secret police had written to Facebook demanding the removal of Sowore’s posts, citing half a dozen laws from the Criminal Code to the Terrorism Prevention Act.
The DSS letter was remarkable not only for its legal citations but also for its tone. It portrayed Sowore’s post as an existential threat to Nigeria’s unity, its security, and its international image. Many Nigerians rolled their eyes. Whatever Sowore is guilty of, it is hardly terrorism. The Service’s action has, in fact, given the activist more visibility than he could have hoped for.
Caught in the middle was Onanuga. Rather than wait for DSS action, he reached out privately to Sowore via WhatsApp, urging him to delete the post. His message was polite, explaining that Tinubu’s statement was being misrepresented. Sowore, true to form, refused. Worse still, he published Onanuga’s private plea, making it part of the controversy. The rest, as they say, is social media history.
Now, what are we to make of all this?
First, Sowore was doing his job as an activist: provoking, questioning, and sometimes overstepping. His right to free expression is guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution. However, freedom of expression is not freedom to defame. Calling a sitting president a “criminal” without a court conviction is reckless. Activism may excuse passion, but it does not excuse slander.
Read Also:
Second, Onanuga was doing his job too. His responsibility is to clarify and defend the president’s statements. In a way, his instinct to appeal privately to Sowore was wise. But it betrayed a certain naiveté. Did he really expect Sowore who built his career on radical transparency to keep a private plea private? Some would say Onanuga walked into a trap set by his old comrade.
Third, the DSS’s intervention reveals a bigger problem. By treating Sowore’s rant as a national security threat, the Service has once again blurred the line between dissent and crime. Nigeria is a democracy, not a barracks. Citizens must be allowed to speak freely, even loudly, against their leaders, without seeing every insult as a matter for intelligence operatives. The law provides avenues for redress civil defamation suits, not the terrorism charge sheet.
Public sentiment, as always, is divided. Sowore has supporters who see him as a fearless voice against impunity. Others dismiss him as an attention-seeker who thrives on outrage. Onanuga has sympathisers who think he showed restraint in trying to reason with an old colleague. Others mock him for dignifying Sowore with a personal message. And the DSS? Most Nigerians see its posture as heavy-handed, proof that our security services still conflate criticism of government with subversion of the state.
Beyond personalities, there are lessons here. One is that free speech comes with responsibility. Nigerians can criticise, lampoon, even parody their leaders. But the line is crossed when language becomes defamatory or incites violence. Another lesson is that those in power should not give oxygen to every critic. In trying to silence Sowore, the government has amplified him.
There is also the matter of private vs. public boundaries. Nigerian politics has become so polarised that even a WhatsApp message can turn into political ammunition. Trust has broken down to the point where personal history counts for nothing. Sowore and Onanuga were once allies against dictatorship; now they are adversaries across the democratic divide. Their exchange is symbolic of the larger cynicism in our politics, where yesterday’s comrades are today’s combatants.
Finally, we must confront the danger of using state power to police speech. If Facebook is forced to take down Sowore’s post today, what stops the DSS from demanding the removal of critical editorials tomorrow? Or investigative reports that embarrass the government? Democracy cannot survive if every insult is treated as sedition.
In the end, Nigerians are not fooled. They know Sowore thrives on provocation, that Onanuga is paid to defend his boss, and that the DSS loves to flex its muscles. What they want is not a war of words between activist and spokesman, but governance that delivers jobs, security, and stability.
Sowore’s post will fade. Onanuga’s WhatsApp message will be forgotten. Even the DSS letter will gather dust in some file. What will remain is the urgent question: can Nigeria strike a balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding free speech, between defending authority and allowing criticism? Until we get that balance right, our democracy will remain fragile and our politics, noisy theatre.
