Africa
Amnesty International’s Selective Outrage And The Sowore Narrative -By Kelvin Adegbenga
Human rights advocacy loses moral force when it becomes partisan activism. By repeatedly positioning itself as a defender of one individual, regardless of facts or due process, Amnesty International risks confirming long-standing concerns that it operates less as an impartial watchdog and more as an agent of political destabilisation.
Amnesty International Nigeria’s latest claim that Nigerian authorities are “witch-hunting” Omoyele Sowore is yet another example of selective outrage dressed up as human rights advocacy.
The allegation is not only misleading; it deliberately ignores basic legal realities while attempting to cast routine judicial processes as persecution.
There is no desperate or coordinated effort by the Nigerian government to silence Sowore. On the contrary, his daily protests continue unhindered, widely publicised, and, by his own conduct, financially buoyed.
It is even more telling that these activities routinely attract funding and amplification from organisations such as Amnesty International itself. It is therefore disingenuous to cry “silencing” when the individual in question enjoys constant visibility, support, and resources.
Amnesty International also appears to suffer from institutional amnesia. It is on public record that the Nigerian Army once called for the closure of Amnesty International’s operations in the country, accusing the organisation of attempting to destabilise Nigeria through what were described as fictitious and exaggerated claims.
That history matters. It raises legitimate questions about credibility and motive whenever Amnesty resurfaces with alarmist narratives that consistently favour one political actor.
Most troubling is Amnesty’s assertion that “since 2019, the Nigerian government has been targeting Sowore solely for his activism – through unlawful detentions and sham trials based on bogus charges.”
This is a sweeping claim presented without balance or context. Activism does not confer immunity from the law, and no democracy functions on that premise. Courts, not pressure groups, determine the legality of arrests, charges, and trials.
Amnesty International should also be reminded of a basic legal principle it conveniently omits: the surrender of a passport during an ongoing criminal trial is a common and standard bail condition across many jurisdictions, including Nigeria and India.
The purpose is straightforward: to prevent flight and ensure the defendant’s presence in court. This condition sits alongside others such as surety bonds and recognisance, all designed to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice is not subverted. To portray this routine judicial safeguard as repression is either ignorant or intentionally deceptive.
Human rights advocacy loses moral force when it becomes partisan activism. By repeatedly positioning itself as a defender of one individual, regardless of facts or due process, Amnesty International risks confirming long-standing concerns that it operates less as an impartial watchdog and more as an agent of political destabilisation.
Nigeria’s justice system is far from perfect, but it is not being manipulated to satisfy or suppress an individual who, by any objective measure, holds no overriding value above the nation’s laws and institutions.
The rule of law must apply equally to all, activists included. No amount of selective outrage or exaggerated claims will change that fundamental truth.
Kelvin Adegbenga writes from Ikeja, Lagos. email: kelvinadegbenga@yahoo.com X- @kelvinadegbenga
