Advocacy Must Not Undermine The Rule Of Law -By Kelvin Adegbenga

It is both surprising and somewhat laughable that a self-acclaimed activist and former presidential candidate such as Omoyele Sowore would stoop so low as to demand that the Inspector-General of Police discontinue a matter that is already before a competent court of law.

Even more troubling is the rather careless allegation that “CSP Nwode allegedly connived with others within the judiciary to imprison whistleblower Nnamdi Emeh after he exposed what he described as a police-linked organ-harvesting ring.”

Such a sweeping claim, presented without credible evidence, reflects the kind of sensational rhetoric that often dominates social media but rarely survives the scrutiny of facts.

Advocacy, without doubt, is an essential component of every democracy. Citizens have the legitimate right to raise concerns about injustice, abuse of power, or perceived wrongdoing within public institutions.

Indeed, history has shown that public pressure can sometimes compel institutions to pay attention to serious matters that might otherwise have been overlooked.

However, the effectiveness of advocacy often depends on how concerns are presented. The tone, structure, and credibility of a complaint frequently determine whether those in authority will engage with it constructively or simply dismiss it as political grandstanding.

It is important to remind Mr. Sowore that when addressing the office of the Inspector-General of Police, currently held by Olatunji Disu, no private citizen, activist, or political figure has the legal authority to issue directives to that office.

The powers, duties, and operational independence of the Inspector-General are clearly defined under the Police Act 2020 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

These laws place the command and administration of the police within a constitutional framework—not under the instructions of individuals operating outside that structure.

Language that sounds like a command to the Inspector-General of Police may generate attention online, but it rarely produces the outcome its author hopes for.

In reality, well-structured communication, respectful engagement, and properly documented petitions often achieve far more than statements that appear confrontational or directive.

If there are indeed serious allegations regarding misconduct within the police or the justice system, the most effective path forward is to present clear, verifiable evidence through the appropriate legal and institutional channels.

That approach not only compels institutions to act but also lends the issue the credibility it deserves.

Mr. Sowore must understand that words matter, especially when addressing those who occupy high public offices. Carefully chosen words can open doors, invite serious attention, and move institutions toward meaningful action.

Conversely, language that appears to instruct authorities can just as easily close those same doors.

Justice is a serious matter. The objective should always be to pursue it in a way that strengthens the case, commands respect, and ultimately compels the system to respond.

Advocacy that undermines the rule of law does little to advance justice; it only weakens the very institutions that society depends upon to uphold it.

Kelvin Adegbenga writes from Ikeja, Lagos. Email; kelvinadegbenga@yahoo.com