The National Coordinator of the “Tinubu Must Go” (TMG) group, Barrister Abba Hikima, has given the Kano State Police Command seven days to explain the disruption of the group’s planned gathering in the state on October 11, 2026.
Hikima, in a formal letter to the Commissioner of Police, demanded clarification on why police officers prevented the gathering from holding at a privately booked venue, despite the group’s position that the meeting was a lawful assembly that did not require prior police permission.
The lawyer made the demands under the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, asking the command to provide answers to nine questions relating to the circumstances surrounding the police intervention, the alleged security threat cited by the authorities and the reported use of tear gas during the incident.
At the centre of the dispute is the police decision to stop the gathering despite, according to Hikima, acknowledging that the meeting was lawful.
“What was the actual reason and justification for preventing the TMG gathering from taking place inside the privately booked venue?” he asked.
Hikima also demanded details of the security threat allegedly used to justify the police action, including the nature of the threat, the identity of those responsible and the steps taken by the command against the alleged perpetrators.
He questioned why the police could not secure the venue and allow the gathering to proceed, given the “very substantial number of armed police personnel” deployed to the location.
“Given the very substantial number of armed police personnel deployed, why was the Command unable or unwilling to secure the venue and allow the lawful gathering to proceed?” he queried.
The TMG coordinator further demanded an explanation for the alleged deployment of tear gas against some participants, particularly those whom the police reportedly said had mobilised to protect the gathering.
He also asked whether the decision to stop the meeting was independently taken by the Kano State Police Command or followed directives from other authorities.
Hikima sought clarification on whether the police action was connected to any policy or coordinated effort to frustrate peaceful political activities by individuals or groups opposed to the Federal Government.
‘We Are Not Seeking Police Permission’
The lawyer said the group was not asking the police for permission to exercise its constitutional rights, but wanted assurances that security agencies would protect peaceful gatherings rather than prevent them.
“We are not seeking permission from the Police to hold subsequent lawful gatherings. We seek a clear answer as to whether the Command is prepared to protect our exercise of those rights and, where threats exist, address the persons making those threats rather than suppress the lawful activities of their intended targets,” he stated.
Hikima cited Sections 39, 40, 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provide constitutional protections relating to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, personal liberty and freedom of movement.
He argued that the Kano incident went beyond the immediate disruption of the TMG gathering, raising broader concerns about the protection of constitutional rights, particularly for citizens and groups critical of the administration of President Bola Tinubu.
The “Tinubu Must Go” movement has emerged as an opposition campaign demanding political accountability and criticism of the policies and governance of the Tinubu administration. Its activities have at various times generated controversy over the limits of political protest, public order and the responsibility of security agencies to protect peaceful assemblies.
FOI Act Threat
In the letter, Hikima also invoked Sections 7(4) and 7(5) of the Freedom of Information Act, drawing the police command’s attention to the legal consequences of failing to provide requested information or wrongfully denying access to information.
He maintained that failure to respond within the statutor