By Iroyin Yoruba Television
The Kano State Police Command has defended its deployment of officers to the venue of a planned meeting by the Tinubu Must Go movement, citing security concerns, while the group's organisers maintain that the action prevented them from exercising their right to peaceful assembly.
The incident occurred on Sunday, October 11, 2026, when members of the movement gathered at a privately booked venue in Kano but alleged that mobile police officers blocked their access.
Abba Hikima, a lawyer, human rights activist and convener of the movement, said in a live video posted on his verified Facebook page that about 10 mobile police vehicles had been stationed at the venue. He argued that the group did not require police permission to hold its meeting.
Kano State Commissioner of Police Ibrahim Adamu Bakori subsequently explained the deployment in an interview with DCL Hausa, saying the command wanted to understand the nature of the gathering and prepare adequate security arrangements.
Police Cite Security Concerns
Bakori acknowledged that the movement had the right to organise a gathering but said advance communication would have helped the police assess potential risks and protect participants and other residents.
According to the commissioner, he contacted Hikima on Saturday night after seeing information about the planned meeting on social media.
He said the organisers indicated that approximately 700 people were expected to attend. The commissioner added that he asked Hikima to postpone the gathering and meet with the command to discuss security arrangements, but the proposed discussion did not take place.
Bakori maintained that the deployment was intended to prevent a breakdown of law and order rather than suppress political opposition.
He also said the police had previously provided security for activities organised by Hikima and other political groups in Kano.
Organisers Challenge the Restriction
Hikima disputed the police action, arguing that citizens should be able to organise peaceful meetings without being prevented from accessing a venue they had booked.
The movement's objection centres on the right to assemble and express political views, including opposition to the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The commissioner acknowledged that the law did not require citizens to obtain police permission or formally notify the command before organising a gathering. He nevertheless argued that communication with the police would help the authorities plan for public safety.
The competing positions raise questions about how security agencies should respond to planned political gatherings while respecting citizens' rights.
The reported deployment and the organiser's account establish that access to the venue was disputed. They do not, on their own, establish that the gathering presented a criminal threat or that the police acted for a political purpose.
Commissioner Refers to Earlier Security Incident
Bakori also referred to a separate incident in the Sabon Gari area of Kano, which he said occurred about two weeks earlier.
According to the commissioner, police seized weapons and arrested some individuals who allegedly claimed to have travelled to the state for political activities. He said the incident contributed to the command's concerns about another gathering expected to attract a large number of people.
The commissioner did not present evidence in the cited interview linking the individuals involved in that earlier incident to the Tinubu Must Go movement or its planned meeting.
The two events should therefore be treated separately unless further evidence establishes a connection.
Questions Over Peaceful Assembly and Public Safety
The incident highlights the challenge of balancing public safety with the right to peaceful assembly and political expression.
Security agencies have responsibilities to protect lives and property, assess credible threats and prevent violence. At the same time, political gatherings and peaceful criticism of government are legitimate forms of civic participation.
The police commissioner's explanation that notification would assist security planning is distinct from establishing that organisers were legally required to obtain permission. Any restriction on a peaceful gathering must be assessed against the applicable law and the specific circumstances.
For the organisers, the central complaint is that officers prevented access to their booked venue. For the police, the stated concern was the need to understand the event and prepare for the safety of participants and residents.
A clear account of the circumstances surrounding the deployment, together with any relevant legal or administrative justification, would help the public assess the dispute.
For now, the police have defended their action on security grounds, while the organisers have challenged the restriction. The available reporting does not establish that the planned gathering itself involved criminal activity.