Justice or Intimidation? Group Condemns Remand of Three Critics in Kwara State

 

​In a development that has sparked intense debate over the state of free speech in North-Central Nigeria, a prominent regional body has formally raised an alarm over the legal proceedings involving three local commentators. The remand of three critics in Kwara has been described by civil society as a troubling sign for the region's democratic health. On Wednesday, February 18, 2026, the Kwara North Development Commission (KNDC) issued a scathing statement following the court's decision to detain the individuals over allegations stemming from a radio broadcast. As tensions rise, the case is being viewed as a litmus test for the independence of the judiciary and the protection of fundamental human rights in the state.

​The Remand of Iliasu Ibrahim, Shola Muse, and Adesomowo Adegogo

​The heart of the controversy lies in the Kwara State High Court sitting in Ilorin, presided over by Justice E. B. Mohammed. The three defendants—Iliasu Ibrahim, Shola Muse, and Adesomowo Adegogo—were ordered to be remanded in a correctional facility pending further legal proceedings.

​The charges against them are rooted in an alleged case of defamation. According to court reports, the critics reportedly made statements during a radio programme concerning the Mutawali of Ilorin, Dr. Alimi AbdulRazaq. While the specifics of the alleged defamatory content remain a matter of legal scrutiny, the immediate detention of the trio before a full trial has drawn the ire of rights advocates across the nation.

​Why the KNDC is Calling it "Judicial Overreach"

​The Kwara North Development Commission (KNDC), through its President, Abdullahi Mansuma, and Publicity Secretary, Hajia Zainabu Seko, did not mince words in their condemnation. The group characterized the court's decision as a "travesty of justice" and a "clear case of judicial overreach."

​1. Concerns Over Haste and Impartiality

​The KNDC highlighted the speed with which the remand order was issued. In their view, the "haste with which the court proceeded to remand the defendants raises serious questions about the impartiality of the presiding judge." The commission argues that the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to a fair hearing appear to have been sidelined in a bid to silence dissenting voices.

​2. Allegations of Executive Interference

​A significant portion of the condemnation was directed at the perceived relationship between the judiciary and the state government. The KNDC alleged that there is an increasing trend of "executive interference in the judiciary," suggesting that the state apparatus is being deployed to intimidate those who criticize the current administration or its high-ranking associates.

​The "Suffocating" Political Space in Kwara

​Beyond the legalities of the defamation case, the KNDC’s statement touched upon a broader socio-political crisis in the state. The group noted that the political climate in Kwara is becoming "increasingly suffocating" under the present administration.

​Insecurity vs. Political Victimization

​One of the most stinging criticisms in the KNDC’s report was the contrast between the government’s focus on critics and its handling of security. The commission pointed out that:

• ​Rising Insecurity: Both Kwara North and Kwara South Senatorial Districts have reportedly seen unprecedented levels of banditry and kidnapping.
• ​Misplaced Priorities: Rather than focusing on securing the lives and property of citizens, the group alleges the administration is preoccupied with silencing critical voices through legal maneuvers.

​This sentiment echoes recent reports of curfews in Edu and Ifelodun LGAs and a devastating massacre in Kaiama earlier in the month, which left over 170 dead. For many observers, the prosecution of radio critics during such a period of insecurity feels like a tactical distraction.

​The Legal Perspective: Defamation or Free Speech?

​The case brings a familiar tension to the forefront: where does free speech end and defamation begin? In Nigeria, the Cybercrime Act and various state-level penal codes are frequently invoked in cases involving "insulting" public figures.

​However, the KNDC insists that citizens should not be persecuted for exercising their right to free speech. They argue that while the law should protect individuals from malicious lies, it should not be used as a "gag order" against political commentary. The remand order, in this context, is seen as a "pre-emptive punishment" aimed at sending a message to other potential critics in the state.

​What Lies Ahead for the Three Critics?

​As Ibrahim, Muse, and Adegogo await their next court appearance from behind bars, the eyes of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and international human rights organizations like Amnesty International are likely to turn toward Ilorin.

​The KNDC has vowed to continue its advocacy, stating:

​“We cannot stand by and watch when citizens are being persecuted for exercising their right to free speech... Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.”

​Conclusion

​The remand of three critics in Kwara has reopened a national conversation about the fragility of the democratic space at the sub-national level. Whether Justice E. B. Mohammed’s court will reconsider the remand order in favor of bail—as is standard for non-capital offenses—remains to be seen. For now, the case stands as a stark reminder of the risks faced by media practitioners and commentators in the quest for accountability.