In Defense of Omoyele Sowore and the Right to Free Expression in Nigeria
September 8, 2025
To:
Mr. Elon Musk, Chief Executive Officer, X (formerly Twitter)
Mr. Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman & CEO, Meta Platforms Inc.
Dear Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuckerberg,
On behalf of the Editorial Board of African Mind Journal, we issue this open letter to register our strongest objection to the recent demand by the Nigerian Government, through the Department of State Services (DSS), for the banning or deactivation of the accounts of journalist and activist Omoyele Sowore.
In its letter of September 7, 2025, the DSS accused Mr. Sowore of spreading “misleading information” after he criticized President Bola Tinubu’s remarks during a recent visit to Brazil. The government went so far as to threaten “far-reaching, sweeping measures” should Meta fail to comply within 24 hours. Such demands are nothing short of censorship, political bullying, and an attempt to conscript global technology platforms into enforcing authoritarianism.
Constitutional and Legal Protections in Nigeria
Nigeria’s supreme law provides clear and binding guarantees of free expression and democratic accountability:
- Section 39(1): Guarantees every person the right to freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
- Section 22: Places a duty on the press and mass media to hold the government accountable to the people.
- Section 14(2)(c): Ensures the participation of citizens in government.
Beyond the Constitution, Nigeria is bound by regional and international commitments:
- African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), Article 9: Protects the right to receive information and to express and disseminate opinions. Nigeria has ratified and domesticated this Charter, making it part of Nigerian law.
These protections have been reinforced in landmark rulings by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, including:
- Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria (1999): Found that Nigeria violated Article 9 of the Charter by repressing journalists.
- Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria (2000): Held that government restrictions on the press breached freedom of expression under the Charter.
Global Precedent
Across the world, governments have made similar attempts to silence critics by pressuring social media platforms. Responsible companies have resisted such efforts:
- India (2021): Twitter refused blanket government orders to remove posts critical of its COVID-19 response, citing freedom of expression.
- Turkey: Both Meta and X have faced state demands to censor political dissent, yet international democratic norms have guided resistance to such censorship.
- United States – New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 1964): The Supreme Court ruled that public officials must tolerate even harsh or offensive criticism as part of democratic accountability.
Our Position
The DSS’s letter is a blatant act of intimidation. It seeks to weaponize your platforms against a Nigerian citizen whose only “offense” is exercising his right to criticize his government. Omoyele Sowore has endured years of harassment for his unflinching commitment to democracy. Silencing him now would not only embolden dictatorship in Nigeria but also set a dangerous precedent for other authoritarian governments eager to stifle dissent online.
Our Appeal
We therefore call on X and Meta to:
- Reject the DSS request to deactivate Mr. Sowore’s accounts.
- Publicly reaffirm your commitment to protecting political speech, especially when it involves criticism of public officials.
- Stand with democracy and press freedom in Nigeria, and by extension, across the African continent.
This is not merely about one man. It is about whether technology platforms of global reach will serve as defenders of free expression or as instruments of repression. The African people, and indeed the international community, are watching.
We further urge civil society, journalists, human rights defenders, and democratic governments around the world to join in solidarity. Sowore’s case is a test of whether truth and dissent can survive in the digital public square. To stand by silently is to allow censorship and authoritarianism to triumph. To resist is to defend democracy itself.
Respectfully,
The Editorial Board
