The Chairman of Kuje Area Council in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Samuel Danjuma Shekwolo, has been dragged before the High Court of the FCT over an alleged directive asking residents to support the ruling All Progressives Congress or leave the council.
The suit, marked FCT/HC/CV/3984/2026, was filed by Chronicles Reporters News Limited and Mannaseh B.P., a registered member of the African Action Congress and resident of Kuje Area Council.
The applicants, through their lawyers at Pathlegal and Co., are asking the court to intervene over what they described as an alleged threat to their constitutional rights.
They specifically cited their rights to freedom of expression, association and movement, as well as protection against discrimination.
The case followed a viral video in which Shekwolo was allegedly heard saying, “I have said in my area council that it’s either you are for the APC or you leave the area council. I am not arguing about it at all.”
The applicants are asking the court to declare the alleged statement unconstitutional and unlawful.
They argued that the statement violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as relevant provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
They are also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Shekwolo, his agents, servants or representatives from implementing, encouraging or promoting any form of political expulsion, intimidation, harassment or discrimination against residents on the basis of their political affiliation, belief or opinion.
The applicants are demanding ₦100m in exemplary and aggravated damages over the alleged infringement of their rights.
They are further asking the court to compel the council chairman to tender a public apology and publish the apology in two national newspapers.
The applicants also want relevant security agencies and the Independent National Electoral Commission to investigate the alleged statement and determine whether it amounts to an electoral offence under applicable laws, including the Electoral Act 2022.
Speaking on the case, the lead applicant, Paul Bem Mannaseh, described the suit as a test of the extent to which elected public officials could use their offices to demand political loyalty from citizens.
“This is not just another political case. This is a direct assault on the soul of Nigerian democracy,” Mannaseh said.
He argued that occupying an elected office did not confer ownership of the territory administered by the office holder or empower the official to determine the political identity of residents.
“No public officer owns the territory he administers. No Nigerian citizen’s right to live, associate and express political opinion can be held hostage to party loyalty,” he said.
Mannaseh, who said he lives in Kuje and belongs to the AAC, described the alleged statement as particularly troubling for residents who support opposition parties.
“As an AAC member living in Kuje, that statement was a direct threat against me and every opposition supporter in the Area Council,” he stated.
“We refuse to be intimidated into silence or forced into exile in our own land. This case is for every Nigerian who still believes that democracy means choice, not coercion,” he added.
The applicants contend that the matter goes beyond an ordinary political disagreement because the alleged statement was purportedly made by a serving public official.
They argued that the statement appeared to link residents’ continued stay in the Area Council to their political allegiance.
According to them, if established, the allegation raises fundamental constitutional questions concerning freedom of expression, association, movement and residence, as well as protection against discrimination.
The suit has also renewed attention on the limits of political authority at the grassroots and whether elected officials can lawfully threaten residents with exclusion from their communities because they refuse to support the governing party.
The applicants maintain that Kuje Area Council belongs to all its residents, regardless of their political affiliations, and cannot be treated as the exclusive territory of APC members or supporters.
They argued that democratic governance requires citizens to freely support political parties of their choice, criticise government policies, associate with opposition groups and participate in political activities without fear of retaliation, harassment or expulsion.
The applicants are therefore asking the court to determine whether the alleged declaration amounted to an unlawful attempt to condition citizens’ residence and participation in community life on political loyalty.
The case could have wider implications for political freedom and accountability at the grassroots, particularly where elected officials are accused of using public authority to intimidate or discriminate against residents because of their political affiliations.
For Chronicles Reporters News Limited, the case is also about determining whether public office holders can exercise state authority without infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens who hold opposing political views.
