Kaduna Court Strikes Down Police Ban on Political Gatherings, Awards N15 Million in Damages

In a landmark ruling that reinforces the bedrock of constitutional democracy, the Kaduna State High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke to the state’s police command, declaring its attempt to suspend all political meetings and rallies across the state as unlawful, unconstitutional, and a “gross abuse of power.” The court not only threw out the police application but also ordered the Nigeria Police Force to pay the sum of N15 million in damages to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) for the violation of its fundamental rights.

A Judicial Repudiation of Executive Overreach

Presiding over the case, Justice Murtala J. Zubairu left no room for ambiguity in his judgement delivered on Wednesday. He held that the police had acted far beyond their legal mandate by seeking judicial authority to impose a blanket ban on political activities. The judge issued a stark warning, stating that such conduct “cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy,” framing the case as a critical test of the balance between state security and civil liberties.

The suit, marked KDH/KAD/NPF/1315/2025, was originally filed by the Commissioner of Police on September 4, 2025, against the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The police sought a court order to halt political gatherings pending investigations into alleged threats of violence. However, in a dramatic turn, the court dismissed the suit as not only “incompetent” but also “politically motivated.” Instead, the court upheld a powerful counterclaim filed by the SDP, which accused the police of acting with blatant bias, breaching their statutory responsibilities, and attempting to suppress opposition voices under the guise of maintaining order.

The Core of the Judgement: Rights Versus Speculative Fear

At the heart of Justice Zubairu’s ruling was a robust defense of the constitutional rights to freedom of association and assembly. “The notion that the police can indefinitely suspend the fundamental rights of association and assembly of every political party in a state is an overreach and constitutes an abuse of statutory powers,” the judge declared from the bench.

He drew a clear and critical distinction that goes to the very heart of police duty in a free society. “The duty of the police is to provide security for peaceful assemblies, not to ban them preemptively based on vague fears or speculative intelligence.” This statement underscores a fundamental principle often tested in democracies worldwide: security concerns, without concrete evidence of imminent danger, cannot be used as a pretext to nullify guaranteed freedoms.

The court firmly established that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, specifically Section 40, which guarantees the freedom of association, holds supremacy over any other legislation. The police had attempted to justify their action by leaning on the Police Act 2020. Justice Zubairu categorically rejected this, stating, “The Applicant’s reliance on the Police Act 2020 cannot override Section 40 of the Constitution… To do otherwise would be an invitation to anarchy and a breach of the social contract.”

Legal Precedents and the SDP’s Counter-Narrative

To solidify its position, the court invoked established legal precedents, including the pivotal cases of Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (2007) and All Progressives Congress v. Inspector-General of Police (2014). These cases have consistently reinforced the judiciary’s position that the police lack the legal grounds to prohibit peaceful political gatherings. This ruling, therefore, is not an isolated opinion but a continuation of a jurisprudential thread protecting political expression from executive caprice.

The SDP’s successful counterclaim painted a picture of a police force that was not merely overzealous but selectively negligent. The party informed the court that it was not the instigator of the August 30 violence cited by the police, but rather a victim of it. In a compelling revelation, the SDP presented evidence that it had previously warned the police about the recruitment of political thugs by the ruling party in a petition dated August 14. According to the party, this early warning was completely ignored by the authorities.

Furthermore, the SDP argued that the specific meeting scheduled for September 4—the very event the police sought to suspend—was mischaracterized. It was not, they contended, a political rally but “a peaceful commiseration visit,” likely to console members affected by the earlier violence.

A Clear Abdication of Duty

Justice Zubairu found the SDP’s account credible and damning for the police. “The evidence before this court shows a clear abdication of duty by the applicant (police),” he observed. “Rather than protect the victims of the August 30 incident, the police sought judicial cover to curtail their rights. This is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.”

The court found that the police had breached their core obligations under Sections 4, 83, and 84 of the Police Act 2020. These sections explicitly mandate law enforcement agencies to provide adequate security for public assemblies and processions, not to seek their prohibition. The police action was, therefore, a fundamental inversion of their statutory role.

The Flawed Injunction and the Price of Violation

Adding another layer of judicial censure, the court set aside an interim injunction the police had earlier obtained. Justice Zubairu noted that this ex parte order was granted without the required undertaking as to damages, a procedural safeguard that protects parties from loss if the injunction is later found to be wrongly granted. This failure violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kotoye v CBN (1989).

“The ex parte order obtained without the required undertaking is irregular, oppressive, and contrary to law. The resulting injury to the respondents must be compensated,” the judge ruled.

This compensation was quantified in a significant damages award of N15 million to the SDP, meticulously broken down by the court:

• N5 million for the arbitrary suspension of the party’s peaceful meeting.
• N5 million for the wrongful ex parte injunction.
• N5 million for the police’s failure to investigate the August 30 attack on the party as reported in their petition.

In a move to ensure accountability beyond financial penalties, Justice Zubairu also directed the police to thoroughly investigate all pending petitions related to the matter and submit a comprehensive report to the Attorney-General of Kaduna State within 60 days.

Implications and the Unanswered Question

As of the time of this report, the Kaduna State Police Command has yet to issue a formal reaction to the sweeping judgement. Several attempts to reach the Command’s spokesperson, DSP Mansir Hassan, were unsuccessful, with calls to his line failing to connect. This silence leaves open the question of whether the police will appeal the decision or accept the court’s firm guidance on the limits of their power.

This ruling serves as a potent reminder to law enforcement agencies across Nigeria that the judiciary remains a vital bulwark against the erosion of democratic freedoms. It affirms that the right to assemble and associate for political purposes is not a privilege granted by the state, but a fundamental right protected by the constitution—a right that cannot be suspended on the altar of speculative security threats. For political parties and citizens alike, it is a resounding victory for the rule of law.

Full credit to the original publisher: The Citizen – Source link