By any standard, Omoyele Sowore is a familiar name in Nigeria’s political space. He brands himself as a revolutionary, a voice of the masses, and a fearless critic of the government. But let’s be honest: there’s a big difference between activism and reckless agitation, and Sowore often crosses that line. That’s why the Department of State Services (DSS) is right to keep him in check.
We must face the truth: Nigeria is not a playground. The country is dealing with fragile security, economic pressures, and social divisions. In such a climate, words are not just words; they can be sparks. When Sowore talks about “revolution” or throws around rhetoric that sounds more like a call to insurrection than constructive criticism, he’s not just exercising free speech—he’s toying with national stability.
The DSS has a mandate: to protect the state from threats, both internal and external. Whether we like it or not, agitation that hints at overthrowing order qualifies as such a threat. If they fold their arms and chaos erupts, the same people who cry foul today will ask, “Where were the security agencies?” Prevention, no matter how unpopular, is better than cleaning up the mess later.
Critics will say, “But Sowore has rights.” Absolutely, and those rights should be respected. But rights are not a blank cheque to cause disorder. Every freedom comes with responsibility. If your speech can push people to violence or deepen instability, don’t expect the state to look away. Even in the most advanced democracies, when speech crosses into incitement, law enforcement steps in. Nigeria should not be different.
Let’s be clear: this is not about silencing opposition. Sowore still has platforms, still grants interviews, and still shares his views. But there is a fine line between dissent and disruption. The DSS is drawing that line, and frankly, it’s about time someone did.
The truth is simple: Nigeria needs critics, but it doesn’t need chaos. Sowore should learn that agitation without responsibility is a danger to the very people he claims to fight for. Until then, the DSS is right to treat his rhetoric with the seriousness it deserves.