The arrest and prosecution of five men in Maiduguri over T-shirts bearing the inscription “Tinubu Must Go” have raised an important constitutional question: can expressing political opposition through clothing amount to a criminal offence in Nigeria?
The five men were arrested in Borno State and subsequently charged with criminal conspiracy, inciting disturbance, disturbance of public peace and thuggery. According to the charges reported by PREMIUM TIMES, the prosecution alleged that the men printed and wore the shirts with the intention of causing a breach of public peace around the West End Roundabout in Maiduguri. The alleged offences were brought under Sections 60, 78, 79 and 392 of the Borno State Penal Code Law. (Premium Times Nigeria)
The case has consequently placed Nigeria’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression against the state’s authority to restrict conduct considered capable of threatening public order.
What Does Section 39 Say?
Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that every person is entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
That protection is particularly relevant to political expression. The Constitution does not limit freedom of expression to opinions that are favourable to the government or to the president of the day.
A statement such as “Tinubu Must Go” can ordinarily be understood as a political opinion or demand concerning the continued occupation of public office. Section 39 therefore provides constitutional protection for the expression of political opinions, subject to the limitations contained elsewhere in the Constitution. (Constitute Project)
In other words, the Constitution protects the right to disagree with a president just as it protects the right to support one.
Does Section 39 Give Absolute Protection?
No.
Freedom of expression in Nigeria is a fundamental right, but it is not an unlimited right.
Section 45 of the Constitution provides that laws may restrict rights protected under Sections 37 to 41 where such restrictions are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or for protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons. (LawGlobal Hub)
This means that the government can legitimately regulate conduct associated with political expression where the legal requirements for such restrictions are satisfied.
The important phrase is “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”
Therefore, a person cannot simply be punished because the government or a political authority dislikes the opinion being expressed. There must be a lawful basis for the restriction, and the prosecution must establish the elements of the offence alleged.
Is Wearing the Shirt Automatically a Crime?
On the information presently available, the answer is not simply yes.
The inscription itself does not automatically transform the shirt into a criminal act.
The prosecution has charged the men with specific offences and alleges that their conduct was intended to cause a breach of public peace. That is materially different from saying that Nigerian law generally prohibits a person from wearing clothing criticising the President.
The distinction is important.
If a person peacefully wears a shirt stating “Tinubu Must Go,” without engaging in violence, threats or other unlawful conduct, the constitutional argument in favour of political expression is substantial.
But if the prosecution can prove that the conduct went beyond the expression of an opinion and satisfied the legal ingredients of an offence involving public disorder, conspiracy or another prohibited act, the constitutional protection does not automatically prevent prosecution.
Ultimately, that factual and legal question belongs to the court.
What About Public Order?
Public order is one of the constitutional grounds on which certain fundamental rights can be restricted.
The relevant question, therefore, is not merely whether the message is provocative or unpopular.
The question is whether the conduct meets the requirements of the particular criminal provision being invoked.
For example, provisions dealing with disturbance of public peace can require proof of particular conduct, intention or likelihood of causing a breach of the peace. Comparable wording in the Penal Code framework provides that an act done with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, a breach of the peace or disturbance of public peace may constitute an offence. (Kogi State Government)
Consequently, a court would need to examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct rather than treating the words printed on the shirt as conclusive proof of criminality.
Political Dissent Is Not the Same as Violence
One of the central issues in the case is the distinction between political dissent and unlawful conduct.
A democratic system necessarily permits citizens to criticise public officials and demand political change.
“Tinubu Must Go” is a political message directed at the President’s continued tenure or political position. It can therefore be understood as an expression of political opposition.
That does not, however, mean that every activity carried out while displaying such a message is automatically protected.
For example, violence, threats, destruction of property or conduct independently prohibited by criminal law would have to be considered separately from the political message itself.
The constitutional analysis therefore has two components: the content of the expression and the conduct accompanying it.
What Does the Current Borno Case Actually Involve?
The five men were reportedly arrested on 25 September 2026 in Maiduguri.
The police initially faced criticism after the men were charged over the T-shirts. According to the charges reported by PREMIUM TIMES, the prosecution alleged that the men conspired to print the shirts and wore them with an intention to cause a breach of public peace.
The men pleaded not guilty, and the matter is before the court. (Premium Times Nigeria)
The Borno Police Command subsequently provided another account of the circumstances of the arrest, saying officers encountered the men during a routine patrol and alleging that suspected cannabis, tablets, a shisha pot and other items were found with them. Those are allegations by the police and should not be treated as established facts unless proved through the appropriate legal process. (Premium Times Nigeria)
That development is important because it means the legal case should not necessarily be reduced to the T-shirt alone. The court will have to consider the actual evidence and the elements of each charge.
Amnesty International’s Position
Amnesty International criticised the prosecution, arguing that wearing a T-shirt expressing opposition to President Bola Tinubu does not, in itself, constitute a crime.
The organisation described the arrests as an infringement on political dissent and called for the charges to be withdrawn. (Premium Times Nigeria)
That is an advocacy organisation’s legal and human-rights position, rather than a judicial determination.
The court, rather than Amnesty International or the police, will ultimately determine whether the prosecution has established the alleged offences against the defendants.
The Police Position
The Borno Police Command has defended its decision to take the matter to court.
The command said its action was intended to allow the judicial process to determine the matter based on the evidence presented. It also stated that the police are committed to fundamental rights, due process and the rule of law. (Premium Times Nigeria)
This creates the central legal issue: whether the evidence supports the specific criminal charges or whether the prosecution is effectively treating political expression itself as criminal conduct.
Those are two legally different propositions.
What Would the Court Have to Determine?
Several questions are likely to be important.
First, did the defendants merely express a political opinion by wearing the shirts?
Second, did they engage in additional conduct capable of satisfying the elements of the offences with which they were charged?
Third, can the prosecution establish the required intention or other elements of those offences?
Fourth, if the prosecution relies on public-order restrictions, are those restrictions applicable to the particular conduct and reasonably justifiable within the constitutional framework?
And finally, does the evidence establish the offences beyond the applicable criminal-law standard?
These questions cannot be answered conclusively merely from the inscription on the shirts.
Section 39 and the Right to Oppose Government
The broader constitutional principle is significant.
Section 39 does not establish a right to praise government. It protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and communicate ideas.
Political opposition is therefore an ordinary feature of constitutional democracy.
A citizen can support a president, criticise a president, campaign for another candidate or express a desire for a change of government, subject to the restrictions imposed by valid law.
The constitutional protection is especially important because political speech concerns public affairs and the exercise of governmental power.
But Freedom of Expression Has Legal Boundaries
At the same time, Section 39 should not be interpreted as providing immunity from generally applicable criminal laws.
Section 45 expressly recognises circumstances in which laws may restrict fundamental rights for purposes including public safety and public order, provided the constitutional standard is met. (LawGlobal Hub)
The legal challenge is therefore one of balance.
The state must protect public order without unlawfully criminalising peaceful political dissent.
Citizens, on the other hand, remain subject to criminal laws where their conduct independently satisfies the requirements of an offence.
The Legal Question Is Bigger Than One T-Shirt
The Maiduguri case raises a wider question about the boundary between political expression and public-order offences in Nigeria.
If a political slogan is treated as criminal solely because it criticises a sitting president, that would raise serious questions under the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
If, however, the prosecution proves that the defendants engaged in conduct independently prohibited by law and that the political message was accompanied by conduct satisfying the elements of the alleged offences, the matter becomes considerably different.
The distinction between those two situations is fundamental.
Conclusion
From a constitutional perspective, wearing a shirt bearing the words “Tinubu Must Go” should not, by the inscription alone, be treated as automatically constituting a criminal offence.
Section 39 protects freedom of expression and the right to hold and communicate opinions, including political opinions. (Constitute Project)
However, Section 39 is not absolute. Section 45 allows constitutionally permissible restrictions in circumstances involving matters such as public safety and public order, where the legal requirements are satisfied. (LawGlobal Hub)
The crucial issue in the Borno case, therefore, is not simply what was written on the shirts, but whether the prosecution can prove that the defendants’ conduct satisfied the specific elements of the criminal offences with which they were charged.
Until the court determines those issues, the defendants remain entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The case ultimately presents a fundamental democratic question: where does lawful political dissent end and criminal conduct begin?
That boundary must be determined by the Constitution, applicable legislation and evidence before the court—not merely by whether a political message is popular or unpopular.
