Opinion: Sowore and his misplaced political Ambition

By Terenga

While the concerns raised above project a picture of persecution and national disgrace, it is important to present a balanced view grounded in facts, law, and the realities of governance.

First, the Department of State Services (DSS) is mandated under Nigerian law to safeguard internal security, protect the state from subversion, and curb threats that may destabilize public peace. When an individual or group engages in sustained campaigns on social media that are perceived as inciting unrest, promoting disaffection against the state, or edging toward possible national security breaches, the DSS has both the right and responsibility to engage with social media platforms in order to prevent escalation.

What is framed as “harassment” may in fact be legitimate state action aimed at preventing disorder. Nigeria has seen, in recent years, how unregulated social media campaigns can inflame tensions and even spark violence — from electoral crises to #EndSARS protests that began peacefully but degenerated into chaos. To preempt such outcomes, agencies often act decisively.

The claim that the DSS is “hired” to stage protests or silence critics oversimplifies a far more complex dynamic. Citizens also have the right to protest in favor of government policies or against perceived misinformation. To assume every pro-government demonstration is “hired” undermines the agency of ordinary Nigerians who may genuinely disagree with activists’ rhetoric.

Equally, allegations of being branded a “terrorism financier” are not to be dismissed as persecution without due process. Courts, not public opinion, are where these matters are resolved. The judiciary, as the third arm of government, provides avenues for redress, including the restoration of passports or the striking out of unjust charges if truly baseless.

The exportation of complaints to Twitter (X) or Facebook is not a “national disgrace” but a recognition that social media platforms — global as they are — can either be partners in curbing harmful content or enablers of destabilization. Governments across the world, including in the United States and the European Union, routinely pressure tech companies to suspend accounts linked to threats, misinformation, or extremist narratives. Nigeria cannot be an exception.

It is therefore misleading to present lawful state actions as mere “criminality” or “personal vendetta.” Democracies survive when rights are balanced with responsibilities, and when freedom of expression is exercised without undermining public safety or national cohesion.

In the end, the Nigerian state is not at war with its citizens but tasked with managing a fragile federation of over 200 million people, diverse in ethnicity, religion, and political interest. Security agencies may not always be perfect, but painting them as “rogues” only fuels mistrust and weakens national institutions that every Nigerian depends upon for stability.

The real struggle is not between an individual and the state, but between chaos and order. Responsible engagement, lawful dissent, and constructive criticism remain the hallmarks of genuine democratic struggle — not rhetoric that inflames and polarizes.