The decision of the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector-General of Police and the Lagos State Commissioner of Police to appeal the Federal High Court judgment in favour of Omoyele Sowore is not merely a procedural reaction.
It is a constitutional moment.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental tension within every democratic society: where does individual liberty end and collective security begin?
The trial court held that the advisory cautioning Sowore to stay away from Lagos and his subsequent declaration as “wanted” violated Sections 41 and 34 of the 1999 Constitution.
However, the appeal now shifts the legal spotlight to Section 45 — a provision often overlooked in public commentary but central to constitutional balance.
Section 41 guarantees freedom of movement.
Yet Section 45(1) clearly states that nothing in Sections 37–41 shall invalidate any law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.
This is not an accidental clause.
It is a deliberate safeguard recognising that rights operate within the framework of order.
Lagos is not a rural municipality.
It is Nigeria’s commercial capital and West Africa’s economic engine.
Millions of commuters traverse strategic corridors such as the Third Mainland Bridge daily.
History has shown that protests in Lagos — including Occupy Nigeria (2012) and EndSARS (2020) — have, at various stages, escalated beyond initial intentions, resulting in gridlock, economic paralysis, property destruction and opportunistic criminal infiltration.
Preventive policing in such an environment is not theoretical; it is operational necessity.
The police argue that their actions were intelligence-driven and connected to anticipated disruption around critical infrastructure.
Intelligence-based policing does not wait for violence to crystallise before intervention.
Command responsibility requires anticipatory judgment.
The appellate court will now determine whether the trial court properly applied the doctrine of proportionality — that is, whether the restriction complained of was reasonably justifiable in the circumstances.
What must not be lost in political rhetoric is this: democracy is not sustained by liberty alone. It is sustained by liberty under law.
The Constitution does not create absolute rights detached from context.
It creates rights within a framework of reasonableness.
Section 45 exists precisely to prevent the paralysis of law enforcement when public safety is at stake.
To frame every preventive action as oppression risks weakening institutional authority in a city where disorder carries national economic consequences.
The appeal, therefore, is not an assault on civil liberties.
It is a request for judicial clarification on the permissible scope of police discretion in high-risk environments.
In a society facing complex security challenges, the balance between protest and public order cannot be determined by activism alone. It must be defined by constitutional interpretation.
The Court of Appeal now carries the responsibility of delineating that boundary — not only for this case, but for future interactions between state authority and civic agitation in Nigeria’s most strategic metropolis.
The National Patriots Movement supports the decision of the Nigeria Police Force to seek appellate review in the Sowore matter and respectfully urges the Appeal Court to objectively re-examine the facts, constitutional provisions, and evidentiary record.
While fundamental rights must remain protected, Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution recognises reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety and public order. In a period marked by complex security challenges, judicial clarity is essential to avoid unintended consequences that may weaken preventive policing. We believe the appellate court should carefully correct any oversight and ensure that liberty and national security remain balanced within constitutional limits.
Princess G. Adebajo-Fraser MFR.
President, the National Patriots.
