By The Guardian Editorial Board, February 21, 2026
Beyond relief to his person and supporters, the reported removal of Sunday Igboho’s name from the Federal Government’s wanted list and his envisaged return from exile speaks to a warped government reaction to dissent, insecurity and peaceful agitation. The saga has exposed the weakness of the justice system and the urgent need for a more mature democratic response to grievances. Now, the country must confront structural failings that continue to alienate large sections of the population.
A leading voice in the agitation for a Yoruba nation, Chief Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho, rose to national prominence in 2021. His activism, largely peaceful, was marked by rallies, public speeches and community mobilisation. However, he appeared in the crosshairs of the then President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration after confronting a Fulani leader accused by locals of terrorising farming communities in Oke Ogun, Oyo State.
While his reported success in dislodging the alleged troublemaker won him widespread admiration across parts of the South-West, reinforcing his image as a defender of vulnerable communities amid growing insecurity, it provoked a collision with federal authorities. In a late-night operation, personnel of the Department of State Services and soldiers stormed his Ibadan home, killing three of his aides and arresting over a dozen others.
The government sought to justify its assault, alleging Igboho was stockpiling arms for a “sinister plan”. It also listed a number of weapons said to have been recovered from his residence. This claim has, however, consistently been denied by Igboho’s legal team and supporters who assert that the weapons were planted to push a false narrative. Even so, the war-like scale of the invasion that led to the supposed arms retrieval could have made bloodthirsty Boko Haram fighters envious.
Igboho escaped and was declared a fugitive. Thereafter, he surfaced in the Republic of Benin, where he was eventually detained and released, beginning a long period of exile. Late last month, his spokesperson, Olayomi Koiki disclosed that arrangements had been perfected for Igboho’s return from self-exile after four years. In a statement, Igboho’s aide explained that the activist’s planned return was a result of the intervention by prominent traditional rulers in the South-West, especially the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Ladoja; the Ooni of Ife, Oba Enitan Ogunwusi; the Olugbon of Orile Igbon, Oba Francis Alao, among others. He added that the Yoruba nation agitator might return to the country any moment and would be fully reintegrated after his clearance had been granted by the Presidency.
The Federal Government’s July 1, 2021 raid was a distasteful, disproportionate and unnecessary demonstration of federal might. In the South-West, where the assault was enacted, it is believed, “Oun ti ko da ko ni oruko meji”—what is unjust cannot be renamed. This was repression masquerading as law enforcement.
From whatever side observers choose to pitch arguments on Igboho’s politics, the state’s response to his activism remains disconcerting. Peaceful agitation should not be met with brute force. Allegations should not be pursued through raids in a country that boasts of hundreds of courts. That a Nigerian was effectively forced to flee his country following such a violent assault by security agencies rests uneasily with the principles of constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
The acclaimed intervention by the Yoruba monarchs in facilitating Igboho’s clearance and return deserves commendation. Their role attests to the fact that Nigeria’s traditional institutions continue to wield significant influence whenever they free themselves from distractions and wade into crises.
Notwithstanding, a country that subscribes to a constitutional order and operates functioning arms of government need not fall back to palace diplomacy to secure basic justice. Matters involving alleged criminality should not have to be resolved through back-channel negotiations, when they can be handled by law enforcement agencies and the courts.
Beyond this, Nigeria must not fail to see the larger symbolism in the Sunday Igboho episode. Too often, the government treats dissent as a security threat rather than a democratic signal; and thereby put pressure on individuals who dare to speak as the conscience of society. However, cries over economic hardship, insecurity and marginalisation, rather than subside, have persisted. These indicate that the sort of social malaise Igboho campaigned against has not disappeared.
Calls for restructuring, true federalism and even confederation gain traction because many Nigerians feel the current system of government has failed to deliver fair dividends, opportunity and safety. When, therefore, they stage peaceful campaigns to draw attention to these imperfections, they should not be criminalised. Cracking down on such voices through intimidation merely fuels resentment and perpetuates the narrative that the authorities operate a deliberate agenda of exclusion.
A government that sincerely strives for the collective good does not silence criticism. It listens. If the Federal Government is convinced it has conclusive evidence that Igboho has breached the law, the logical path is to charge him to court accordingly. Otherwise, deploying government agencies in ways that smack of selective justice and heavy-handedness will only compound grievances, erode public trust and weaken the legitimacy of the state.
Agitators rarely invent new sentiments. They simply ride on feelings that have always been felt by sections of the country who believe they receive unfair portions of a commonwealth. Often, while these sentiments rumble quietly +on the Richter Scale, little or nothing is done to address the concerns of complainants. For decades, debates over federalism, resource control and insecurity have failed to attract appropriate official response or deserved urgency.
Government should not treat activists as the problem, while, at the same time, ignoring the winds that fan their protestations. Besides delivering tangible dividends of governance, government should engage in honest dialogue about the sustainability of the country as presently constituted. There is no point pretending that all is well while millions struggle to survive and entire communities are insecure. Conversations about restructuring or devolution of powers are not threats to unity but opportunities to review the current governance structure and evolve solutions that work for the different federating units.
