By Danjuma Lamido
In a time when democratic discourse and civic engagement are vital for national growth, the right to free speech remains one of the bedrocks of a free society.
Activists and citizens alike must have the freedom to critique public officials. However, that right comes with responsibility and legal boundaries.
In the case of Deji Adeyanju’s recent remarks labelling the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, as “useless and shameless,” there is no doubt that the activist crossed the line, morally, ethically, and legally.
Criticism of public officials is not only allowed, it is necessary. But there is a difference between informed critique and malicious insult. Calling the IGP “useless” and “shameless” isn’t just inflammatory; it serves no constructive purpose in a national dialogue.
These words are not policy criticisms. They are personal attacks, intended to demean rather than enlighten.
There is a standard of decorum expected in public debate, especially when targeting individuals holding public office.
One can question the effectiveness of the police under Egbetokun’s leadership or highlight failures in handling specific incidents. But reducing the country’s top law enforcement officer to a target of crude insult undermines not only the individual but the institution he represents.
While Nigeria’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Section 39, this freedom is not absolute. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, the Penal Code, and the Criminal Code all contain provisions against defamation and injurious falsehoods.
Since Adeyanju made these remarks on a public platform, social media, he is already exposed to potential charges under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act, which criminalises knowingly sending offensive or menacing messages through communication services.
Moreover, his words could meet the threshold for criminal defamation, depending on the context, reach, and intent behind them.
Let’s be clear: criminalising speech should be a measure of last resort, especially in a democracy. But when speech descends into outright character assassination, the law must be considered.
Adeyanju’s comments also risk undermining public trust in national institutions. The IGP, regardless of political leanings or administrative shortcomings, is the symbol of law enforcement in Nigeria.
Vilifying him with base language damages not just his personal integrity but chips away at public confidence in policing and governance.
There is also a matter of consistency. Adeyanju has been a vocal critic of the abuse of power, but by resorting to name-calling, he mirrors the very behaviour he opposes. Accountability must be pursued with intellect, facts, and civility, not insults.
Deji Adeyanju has every right to challenge the IGP’s performance, policies, or perceived inaction. That’s democracy. But calling him “useless and shameless” is not democratic discourse; it is slander cloaked in activism. We must not confuse vulgarity for courage or defamation for dissent.
Public figures and activists have a duty to elevate the national conversation, not degrade it. If Adeyanju truly believes the IGP has failed in his duty, let him make his case with facts, not invective.
The law, while not a gag tool, is there to protect individuals from reckless and reputation-damaging speech. It may be time for it to remind us all that words, especially when spoken in public, have consequences.
Danjuma Lamido is the Publicity Director of the Integrity Youth Alliance and writes from Adamawa. Email: danjumalamido2011@gmail.com
