RIGHT OF REPLY
POLITICS MUST NOT BE USED TO SILENCE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ON THE RULE OF LAW IN KEBBI.
A Response to the Statements by the APC Kebbi State Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Isah Abubakar Assalafi, and Governor’s Media Aide, Ibrahim Abubakar Jombali.
By Bala Salihu Dawakin Kudu
Northern Bureau Chief
September 30, 2026.
The attention of the public has been drawn to the statements attributed to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Kebbi State Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Isah Abubakar Assalafi, and the Special Adviser to the Kebbi State Governor on Public Enlightenment and Orientation, Mr Ibrahim Abubakar Jombali, in reaction to concerns raised by Senator Garba Musa Maidoki of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) regarding the arrest, detention and prosecution of some ADC members and supporters in Kebbi State.
- Advertisement -
Their central argument appears to be that allegations of political persecution require evidence and that political affiliation cannot provide immunity from criminal investigation.
That principle is not in dispute.
However, the same principle must apply in the opposite direction: government institutions and security agencies must also be subjected to evidence, transparency, accountability and due process.
The fact that a citizen belongs to an opposition political party does not make him immune from investigation. Equally, the fact that a citizen belongs to an opposition party does not make him automatically guilty merely because a security agency arrests or prosecutes him.
The APC spokesperson’s response repeatedly asks: where is the evidence?
That is a legitimate question.
But it should not be directed exclusively at the opposition.
If the state maintains that the arrests and prosecutions were based entirely on legitimate criminal allegations, then the appropriate response is straightforward: identify the offences alleged, identify the investigating authority, state when the investigations commenced, explain the legal basis for the arrests and allow the courts to determine the cases.
That is the language of the rule of law.
It is not enough to repeatedly tell the public that the police are acting professionally. Where serious allegations of abuse arise, the proper institutions should independently establish what happened.
Similarly, where an accused person alleges unlawful detention, the answer should not be that he is a member of ADC.
The answer should be found in police records, court processes, warrants where applicable, statements, charge sheets, bail applications and judicial decisions.
The argument that Senator Maidoki is attempting to dictate to the police how to perform their duties also requires clarification.
There is a fundamental distinction between interfering with police operations and calling for an investigation into alleged police misconduct.
A senator, political party, civil society organisation or ordinary citizen may legitimately demand an investigation where they believe that a law-enforcement institution has acted improperly.
That does not amount to taking over the functions of the police.
Indeed, Senator Maidoki’s reported intention to petition appropriate oversight and human-rights institutions, if pursued through lawful channels, is itself an institutional process rather than a substitute for judicial proceedings.
The appropriate response should therefore be: investigate the complaint and publish the findings where legally permissible.
The APC response places considerable emphasis on the sanctity of the judiciary.
Everyone should agree that courts must be protected from political interference.
But respect for the judiciary does not mean that citizens lose the right to question the circumstances surrounding arrests, detention, bail, prosecution or the conduct of law-enforcement officers.
There is an important distinction between criticising or questioning the circumstances surrounding a case and directing a court on how to decide it.
If a court has made an order, the order must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside through the proper legal process.
At the same time, if there are allegations concerning the conduct of police officers, prosecutors or other officials, those allegations can and should be investigated through the appropriate institutions.
The APC’s repeated demand for evidence should become a universal standard.
If ADC alleges political persecution, it should present evidence.
If APC says the arrests were purely criminal-law enforcement, the relevant institutions should provide the legal and factual basis.
If an individual claims unlawful detention, the circumstances should be investigated.
If the police say an offence was committed, the prosecution should establish it before a competent court.
If a court reaches a decision, the parties should respect the decision and use the appellate system where appropriate.That is how the rule of law works.
The principle should therefore be:
Evidence before accusation.
Due process before punishment.
Investigation before conclusion.
Judgment before conviction.
Accountability without political discrimination.
It is also important to put Senator Maidoki’s present political position in its proper context.
Senator Garba Musa Maidoki formally left the APC for the ADC in June 2026, citing unresolved internal disputes surrounding the APC’s primary process in Kebbi State. His defection was reported by several Nigerian newspapers, including Democracy Newsline Newspaper.
That political history is relevant context, but it cannot by itself establish either political persecution or the absence of political persecution.
Maidoki’s defection does not prove that every subsequent action against ADC members is politically motivated. But neither does his defection prove that every complaint made by ADC members is politically motivated. The facts of each individual case must determine the matter.
There is another important issue.
When opposition politicians raise questions about governance, public expenditure or security, government representatives routinely respond that the opposition must provide evidence.
That is understandable.
But government is not merely another political campaign organisation.
Government controls public resources and commands institutions with coercive powers. Consequently, when citizens raise questions about arrests, detention, security operations or public expenditure, government has a heightened responsibility to demonstrate transparency.
Recent public exchanges between the Kebbi Government and ADC representatives over the state’s budget illustrate this broader disagreement. Mr Jombali has argued that budget projections should not be confused with actual cash received by government, describing the opposition’s interpretation as misleading.
That disagreement should be settled by documents, audited accounts, budget implementation reports and other verifiable records—not by political insults.
The same standard should apply to law-enforcement allegations.
Mr Ibrahim Abubakar Jombali has, in previous public interventions, argued that opposition allegations should be supported by evidence rather than political insinuations.
That is a defensible democratic principle.
But it becomes much stronger when applied consistently.
If evidence is demanded from the opposition, government representatives should also welcome independent verification of government claims.
If the opposition is asked to produce documents, the government should be prepared to produce documents where the law permits.
If ADC is challenged to prove that a particular arrest was politically motivated, the relevant authorities should equally explain the legal foundation of that arrest.
This is not hostility towards government.
The most serious part of the controversy concerns the allegation that some ADC members or supporters were arrested, detained or prosecuted because of their political activities.
That allegation should neither be automatically accepted nor automatically dismissed.
It should be investigated.
For every disputed case, the public-interest questions are simple:
Who was arrested?
When was the person arrested?
Which security agency carried out the arrest?
What offence was alleged?
Was there a warrant, where legally required?
When was the suspect taken before a court?
Was bail requested?
If bail was refused, on what legal basis?
What charge was filed?
What evidence is being relied upon by the prosecution?
Was the person ultimately convicted, discharged or acquitted?
Were there complaints of misconduct by security personnel?
If so, which institution investigated the complaint?
These questions do not undermine the police.
They strengthen the police.
They do not undermine the judiciary.
They strengthen confidence in the judiciary.
There have also been references to an alleged earlier arrest and detention of a young man identified as “Meli” in connection with a Facebook post concerning Senator Maidoki.
That is a serious allegation.
However, because I have not found sufficiently reliable publicly accessible documentation establishing the complete circumstances of that incident, it would be irresponsible to present the allegation as an established fact.
If there are police records, court documents, statements from the individual concerned or other verifiable evidence, those materials should be made available.
That is the appropriate standard for everyone.
The response attributed to APC also attempts to place historical conduct by political actors at the centre of the current controversy. Reference has been made to the period when Abubakar Malami served as Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and to the widely reported 2016–2017 raids on the residences of serving judges by security agencies.
Those historical events are matters of public record and remain subjects of public debate.
But even if one establishes that political actors previously supported or participated in controversial actions, that does not determine whether a present arrest is lawful or unlawful.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
If anybody previously abused state institutions, that conduct should be investigated.
If anybody is abusing state institutions today, that should also be investigated.
Justice cannot be selective.
Interestingly, the APC itself recently called for a thorough and impartial investigation into the violence reported in Jega and urged security agencies to investigate and prosecute those responsible.
That position demonstrates an important principle: investigation is not political interference.
If a political party can legitimately demand investigation into violence affecting its supporters or citizens, opposition parties should equally be able to demand investigation into alleged unlawful conduct by security agencies. The answer in both situations should be the same:
Investigate the facts. Establish responsibility. Follow the law.
The ADC should not demand immunity for its members.
The APC should not demand immunity for its members.
Government officials should not enjoy immunity from legitimate scrutiny merely because they occupy public office.
Security agencies should not be treated as political weapons.
Opposition politicians should not use their positions to obstruct legitimate criminal investigations.
And the judiciary should not be dragged into partisan political battles.
These principles are not contradictory.
They are the foundation of constitutional democracy.
The debate should not be reduced to whether Senator Maidoki is an APC politician, an ADC politician or a former APC member.
The question is whether every person arrested in Kebbi State is being treated according to the law.
If the allegations are false, an impartial investigation will establish that.
If misconduct occurred, an impartial investigation should expose it.
If criminal offences were committed, prosecution should proceed according to law.
If the accused persons are innocent, the courts should say so.
If they are guilty, conviction should follow due process.
That is the only standard that should matter.
The people of Kebbi State deserve something better than an endless exchange of political press statements.
They deserve functioning institutions.
They deserve transparent investigations.
They deserve security agencies that are professional and politically neutral.
They deserve courts whose independence is protected.
They deserve politicians who understand that criticism is part of democracy.
And they deserve a government confident enough to allow allegations against its institutions to be independently investigated.
Therefore, the proper response to Senator Maidoki’s allegations is neither automatic acceptance nor automatic dismissal.
It is verification.
Let the police produce the facts.
Let the complainants produce their evidence.
Let independent oversight institutions examine allegations of misconduct.
Let prosecutors establish their cases.
Let defendants exercise their constitutional rights.
Let the courts decide cases according to law.
And let the public judge the competing claims on the basis of verifiable facts rather than political rhetoric.
The rule of law cannot be defended selectively.
If evidence matters, let it matter to everybody.
If due process matters, let it protect everybody.
If the law is supreme, let it be supreme over everybody.
That is the real test of democracy in Kebbi State.
DemocracyNewslineNewspaper September 30, 2026
