Five Men Arrested in Borno over ‘tinubu Must Go’ T‑shirts Spark Legal Debate

Five men were arrested and remanded in Borno over Tinubu Must Go T‑shirts, a development that has reignited a national conversation about the limits of political expression in Nigeria. The men, aged between 22 and 34, were detained by the Borno State Police Command on Thursday after officers spotted them wearing the controversial shirts in a public market in Maiduguri. According to the police, the shirts were deemed to be inciting violence and threatening public order, prompting immediate action under the Public Order Act.

Background to the arrests

The incident occurred against a backdrop of heightened political tension ahead of the 2027 general elections. Since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s inauguration in 2023, opposition groups have frequently used slogans and apparel to voice dissent, often sparking clashes with security agencies. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the government has repeatedly invoked the Public Order Act to curb what it describes as “unlawful assemblies” and “incitement to violence”.

In Borno, the security situation remains delicate due to lingering insurgency concerns. The state government, led by Governor Babagana Umara Zulum, has emphasized the need for stability, especially in commercial hubs where any unrest could affect livelihoods. This context helped shape the police’s swift response to the T‑shirt incident.

Legal basis for the detention

Under Section 6 of the Public Order Act, any person who “engages in conduct likely to cause public disorder” can be arrested and detained for up to 48 hours pending investigation. The police claim the shirts, emblazoned with the phrase “Tinubu Must Go,” could provoke confrontations between supporters and opponents of the president, thereby breaching the Act.

Human rights advocates, however, argue that the arrests constitute an overreach. The Nigerian Constitution’s Section 39 protects the right to freedom of expression, provided it does not threaten public safety. Legal scholars note that the line between legitimate protest and incitement is often blurred, and courts have historically required a clear and imminent threat before restricting speech.

Reactions from civil society and political parties

Several civil society organisations, including the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), have condemned the arrests as a violation of constitutional rights. In a statement released on Friday, the NBA urged the authorities to release the men and to engage in dialogue with opposition groups instead of resorting to punitive measures.

Opposition parties, notably the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP), have seized on the incident to rally support. Party leaders have called for nationwide protests demanding the release of the detained men and an end to what they describe as “political intimidation”. Social media platforms are buzzing with hashtags such as #FreeTheFive and #TinubuMustGo, reflecting a broader discontent among younger voters.

Impact on the upcoming 2027 elections

The arrests arrive at a crucial juncture for the 2027 electoral calendar. With party primaries slated for early 2027, the political climate is already charged. Analysts suggest that heavy‑handed actions by security agencies could backfire, galvanising opposition supporters and potentially influencing voter turnout.

Conversely, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) maintains that maintaining public order is paramount, especially in states like Borno where insurgent activity still poses a threat. The party’s spokesperson warned that any escalation of protests could be exploited by extremist groups, thereby endangering civilians.

What the law says about political apparel

While there is no specific legislation banning political slogans on clothing, the Public Order Act provides a broad framework that authorities can invoke. Courts have previously ruled that symbols and slogans can be restricted if they are likely to incite violence. In the 2024 case of Obi vs. State, the Federal High Court upheld the seizure of protest banners, citing a credible risk of clashes.

Legal experts advise that any protest material, including T‑shirts, should avoid language that could be interpreted as a direct call to action. Phrases like “must go” are often seen as more aggressive than neutral expressions such as “vote for change”.

Practical guidance for activists

Activists who wish to use apparel as a form of expression can take steps to reduce legal risk while still conveying their message. Below is an illustrative example.

Example: An activist group designs a T‑shirt that reads “Better Leadership, Safer Future” instead of a direct demand for a specific office‑holder to leave. The wording is aspirational and less likely to be classified as incitement under the Public Order Act.

Key takeaways from the example:

• Use inclusive language that focuses on policy outcomes rather than personal attacks.
• Avoid imperative verbs that suggest immediate removal of a political figure.
• Consider adding a disclaimer stating that the shirt reflects personal opinion and does not intend to provoke violence.

Possible outcomes and next steps

The five men remain in police custody, with their remand hearing scheduled for next week at the Borno State High Court. Their legal counsel is expected to argue that the arrests infringe on constitutional freedoms and that the evidence of incitement is insufficient.

If the court rules in favour of the defendants, it could set a precedent limiting the use of the Public Order Act in political contexts. Conversely, a conviction could embolden security agencies to clamp down on similar expressions, potentially chilling political discourse across the country.

Comparative perspective: other African jurisdictions

Other West African nations have grappled with similar tensions. In Ghana, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of expression, but the Public Order Act there has been used sparingly, with courts often requiring a direct link between speech and imminent violence. In Kenya, the Penal Code’s “seditious intention” clause has faced criticism for being overly broad, leading to calls for reform.

These comparative cases illustrate that Nigeria’s legal debate is part of a broader regional conversation about balancing security and dissent.

FAQ

• What law did the police cite to arrest the men? The police invoked Section 6 of the Public Order Act, which allows detention for conduct likely to cause public disorder.
• Are political slogans on clothing illegal in Nigeria? Not per se, but they can be restricted if authorities deem them likely to incite violence or threaten public safety.
• When will the men appear in court? Their remand hearing is set for the first week of October 2026 at the Borno State High Court.
• Can I wear a T‑shirt with a political message without risk? You can, but it is advisable to use non‑imperative language and avoid phrases that could be interpreted as a direct call to action.
• What precedent might this case set? A ruling in favour of the defendants could narrow the application of the Public Order Act to political expression, while a conviction could broaden police powers.

As Nigeria heads toward the 2027 elections, the balance between security and free expression will remain a focal point of public debate. The outcome of this case could shape how political dissent is managed in the country’s most volatile regions.

For ongoing coverage, follow our updates on political developments across West Africa.

Source: Pulse.ng

Related Reading

• Why Niger Delta Infrastructure Costs More Than the North
• Tinubu and Sanwo‑olu Call for Unity as Nigeria Marks 66 Years
• FG Unveils Energy Zones to Deliver 24‑hour Electricity Supply Across Nigeria