In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the rights to freedom of movement and political participation are not privileges, they are foundational guarantees. Yet recent developments in Nigeria suggest a troubling drift toward executive overreach at the subnational level, where diplomatic gestures are increasingly being weaponized as tools of political intimidation.
A widely circulated video recently captured Governor Monday Okpebholo of Edo State issuing a pointed warning to Mr. Peter Obi, the former Labour Party presidential candidate. In the footage, Governor Okpebholo declared that Obi must seek “approval” before visiting Edo State, adding: “If he enters without informing me, whatever happens to him, he should take it.” This statement departs significantly from the norms of diplomatic courtesy and veers into the realm of political intimidation, suggesting that a Nigerian citizen must obtain state-level permission to exercise the constitutional right to free movement within the country.
To many Nigerians, Governor Okpebholo’s statement was not a matter of protocol but a veiled threat. It raised serious concerns about the misuse of state power and the slow erosion of constitutionally protected liberties.
Unfortunately, this incident is not isolated. Governor Hyacinth Alia of Benue State previously made similar remarks, warning against Peter Obi’s planned visit to his state. Such public declarations, aimed at limiting the movements of political opponents, set a dangerous precedent that threatens Nigeria’s democratic integrity.
Defenders of these governors often cite precedents of political courtesy exchanged among high-ranking officials. For instance, former Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole recently defended Governor Okpebholo’s conduct by referencing an instance in which former President Olusegun Obasanjo allegedly informed him before visiting Edo State during Oshiomhole’s tenure. He also noted that he personally notified Governor Peter Mbah of Enugu State before traveling to Nsukka to deliver a lecture at the University of Nigeria. However, these examples reflect voluntary intergovernmental protocol among political peers, not the imposition of approval requirements on private citizens or political opponents.
There is a critical distinction between diplomatic courtesy and constitutional overreach. Courtesy is rooted in mutual respect; constitutional rights are grounded in legal obligation. Demanding “approval” from a citizen, particularly a political figure, for intra-national travel is unconstitutional and incompatible with democratic norms. Sections 40 and 41 of the Nigeria Constitution 1999 (As Amended) unambiguously guarantee Nigerians the rights to political association and freedom of movement.
Many citizens have begun to express growing concern over the creeping normalization of such intimidation tactics. What is especially disconcerting is the silence from the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
As the nation’s chief law officer, the AGF bears the responsibility of upholding constitutional principles beyond partisan interest. His role is not merely administrative, it is a constitutional safeguard. When such clear violations of constitutional rights occur, the AGF is expected to provide legal clarity and defend the civil liberties of all Nigerians.
The silence from the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) regarding the actions of Governor Monday Okpebholo of Edo State and Governor Hyacinth Alia of Benue State is far from neutral—it is deeply consequential. In the absence of a clear legal position, such silence may be interpreted by state actors as tacit endorsement, thereby encouraging further constitutional violations.
While Attorneys General at the state level may be politically constrained by virtue of their appointments, the AGF operates on a national platform with a mandate to protect the Constitution and check potential abuses of power by state actors. When the highest legal authority remains silent in the face of blatant breaches of constitutional freedoms, it effectively signals that such behavior is tolerable, if not permissible.
It is time for the Attorney General of the Federation to discharge his constitutional duty by issuing an unequivocal statement affirming the rights of citizens to move freely and engage politically anywhere within the federation. The costs of silence are steep: diminished public trust, institutional decay, and the legitimization of authoritarian tendencies cloaked as protocol.
In any functioning democracy, the rule of law cannot be selectively enforced. The boundary between diplomatic courtesy and unlawful intimidation must be unambiguously drawn and vigilantly guarded. Governors must understand that their executive authority does not extend to curbing the constitutional rights of citizens, and the federal government must lead in ensuring those rights are uniformly protected.
Nigeria’s democratic survival depends not only on electoral processes, but on the daily, active defense of the Constitution by its institutions and leaders. The Attorney General of the Federation has the opportunity to affirm this principle today-and Nigerians are watching.
Ezekiel Vem’ Ofou, Esq. is a legal practitioner with a passion for legal education and public interest advocacy. He can be reached at ezekiel@lawyer.com