IT baffled me to read that the presidential candidate of the Alliance African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, and his team were allegedly attacked on October 30, 2026, at Tawakalitu Restaurant in the Dalimore area of Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State. The ground of my bafflement was that, since the inception of the administration of Governor Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji in 2022, Ekiti has been relatively peaceful without any record of serious conflict among political rivals, even in the elections that directly concerned them, such as the Local Government, State and National Assembly elections, as well as the just concluded Governorship elections. So, it was with disbelief that I received the story until it was confirmed by the police. After the Ekiti State Police Command confirmed the attack and swiftly arrested 11 suspects alleged to be connected with it, my knowledge as a veteran journalist and a legal scholar made me think that all hands should be on deck to allow law enforcement agencies to unravel those behind the attack. However, with the story published by Sowore on Thursday 4th November 2026 calling out different personalities and institutions as the masterminds of the attack, I consider it imperative as a critical stakeholder in the Ekiti project to set the record straight as well as educate Sowore on the legal implications of his usual seditious and libelous publications.
In the said publication, Sowore identified the following people as being responsible for his attack: the Governor of the Ekiti State, Mr Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji; Chief Security Officer to the Governor, CSP Ayodele Akinlua; Commissioner of Police, Falade Adegoroye Michael; Ekiti State Director of State Services, one Adenijo Sola; Omotuyi Temitope; Asefon Sunday Dayo, who he wrongfully referred to as a Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu; the Chief Press Secretary to the Governor, Olayinka Oyebode; Makinde Araoye; Ayodeji Akintade Ifeoluwa; the Managing Director of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), Oyetunde Oladimeji Ojo; and the Senior Special Assistant on Public Communications and Social Media to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Lere Olayinka. Not only did he accuse the aforementioned personalities, but he exonerated all those that were arrested by the police in connection with the attack.
To put things in the right perspective, no one is saying that Sowore, as the victim of the attack, cannot pinpoint those he suspected to be responsible, but publishing the names of these individuals while the investigation is ongoing is prejudicial and counterproductive. One would have expected him to write his petition, attach those names with their alleged roles, and submit it to the Inspector General of Police since he has no confidence in the Ekiti State Commissioner of Police, whom he accused of complicity in the matter. Going by section 373 of the Nigerian Criminal Code, Sowore has injured the reputation of these individuals by exposing them to hatred, contempt, and ridicule especially when investigation revealed that some of these individuals were not even in Ekiti at the time of the attack.
Moreover, for obstructing the ongoing police investigation, Sowore has flouted Section 133(4) and 133(9) of the Criminal Code Act (applicable in Southern Nigeria) which criminalises the publishing of any implicating story with the intent to prejudice a party while the case is pending. This act constitutes a misdemeanor, punishable by up to three months' imprisonment. Concerning the real subject matter, it is high time Sowore stopped his style of playing to the gallery because, one, he is no longer into student union activism where strong language and physical confrontations are usually deployed to gain public sympathy. Two, we are no longer under military rule, where political activists deployed every means of self-help to confront jungle justice. He must engage the tenets of democracy in his activism and display some decorum in his Presidential campaign.
From Sowore's publication, he was accusing the organizers of the Marathon race of being responsible for his attack because, according to him, he was not allowed to participate in the race. How does this add up? If he was not allowed to participate because he did not meet up with the criteria set up for the event, did that warrant his going to a restaurant in the town to incite the people? In the cause of exchanging words with street boys even in a football argument, it can lead to fracas not to talk of sensitive political discussion where area boys would expect you to throw around money instead of throwing banters which did not go down well with them. Without any politician prompting hungry boys, they could easily become angry by an incitement that did not go with gift.
Regardless of Sowore's allegation against the Commissioner of Police, I want to urge the Nigeria Police Force to do a diligent work by bringing the culprit to book so that Ekiti State will sustain its top-ranking position among the most peaceful states in Nigeria.
Dr Oguntayo is lecturer in the College of Law, Afe Babalola University, Ado- Ekiti (ABUAD).