Pro-democracy group, Save Nigeria Movement (SNM) has said the raid on the Ibadan residence of the self-styled agitator of independent Yoruba nation by the department of state security and other security agencies is within the ambit of the law.
Consequently, SNM convener, Mr Solomon Semaka addressing a press conference in Abuja maintained that the onslaught was in the best interest of the country and further
endorsed the decision of the Nigeria police force (NPF) to ban rallies in the country.
The group argued that the measure was aimed at averting the reoccurrence of the #ENDSARS protests which led to and destruction of property during the #EndSARS protests in Lagos.
The group insist that the decision by security agents to arrests secessionists , Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho was in tandem with the dictates of the law.
The group expressed surprise that a national daily (not the Guardian) went out of its ways to whip up sentiments and discredit such security operation which was in the best interest of the country.
It noted: ” No responsible citizen or media organ would support violence as a means to an end. This is only possible in Igboho’s and The Nation’s Banana Republic. And Nigeria is not a Banana Republic; a reason the security agencies could not have idly stood by and watch them subvert the peace.
“Therefore, the NPF should not be blamed for placing a ban on protests as a proactive measure to prevent similar destructions under the guise of protests. The arrest of protesters for flagrantly disobeying its order especially that some were found to be in possession of incriminating items such as guns and other dangerous weapons should rather be commended and not condemned.
“The claim that security agencies have failed to combat the activities of criminal herdsmen and bandits operating in the country is too petty an assertion for The Nation to peddle.
“The fact remains that government and security agencies have continued to confront the menace of banditry and terrorism in the North and everyday day bandits and terrorists are pounded.
“The paper’s argument that Igboho’s activities (no matter how provocative and offensive) are guaranteed by the constitution are also misleading and indeed laughable. Its choice of selective amnesia about the constitutional provision in Section 44 (1) that freedom ends where it becomes an infringement on the fundamental rights of others is shocking. It is common knowledge that Igboho serially infringed on fundamental rights of others.
“For SNM, Igboho’s careless pronouncements led to several ethnic clashes in Oyo State and beyond. Such would have provoked reprisals in parts of the country except for quick interventions of unbiased stakeholders particularly security agencies. SNM finds it funny that the editorial believes “security agencies possess the necessary acumen, skills and intelligence capacity to have effectively, efficiently and methodically monitored Igboho’s movements” and yet questioned the security operation.”
