By Comrade Ijeomah Anthony, Minister of Information,
18th October 2025

Owerri: In a bold reaffirmation of his long-standing commitment to peace and the rule of law, Chief Dr. Ralph Uwazuruike, founder of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and leader of the Biafra Independence Movement (BIM), has instituted legal action against the Imo State Police Command and the Nigeria Police Force over what he described as a politically motivated invitation aimed at curtailing his fundamental rights.

The suit, filed at the High Court of Imo State, Owerri Judicial Division, seeks the enforcement of his fundamental rights to liberty, freedom of movement, and peaceful assembly as guaranteed under Sections 35, 41, and 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, LFN 1990.

The case, filed through his counsel, Barr. M.O. Anyanwu of Fidei Deum Attorneys, Equal Right Chambers, Owerri, is between Chief Raphael Uwazuruike (Applicant) and ACP Oladimeji Odeyiwa (Commander, Tiger Base, Owerri), ASP John Ebute, ASP Eze Jet, Inspector Alice Zakari, the Commissioner of Police Imo State Command, the Nigeria Police Force, and the Police Service Commission (Respondents).

According to the originating motion, Uwazuruike is seeking, among other reliefs:

1. A declaration that the police invitation dated October 16, 2025, directing him to appear at the Anti-Kidnapping Unit (Tiger Base), Owerri, on October 20, 2025 — the same day slated for the nationwide peaceful protest demanding the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu — constitutes a gross violation of his constitutional rights to liberty and freedom of movement.

2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further harassing, inviting, or attempting to arrest or detain him over what he described as a “concocted allegation” of criminal invasion, forgery, and willful damage.

3. An order of compensation mandating the respondents jointly and severally to pay the sum of ₦100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) as general damages for the violation of his fundamental rights.

In his supporting affidavit, Uwazuruike stated that he had lived peacefully in Owerri for years without any prior police invitation until after his public declaration on October 8, 2025, to join the peaceful protest for Nnamdi Kanu’s release. He deposed that the sudden invitation, delivered to his residence on October 16, was clearly intended to prevent his participation in the October 20 rally.

“I have not committed any offence by volunteering to join a peaceful protest,” Uwazuruike stated in his affidavit. “The invitation is a mere ploy to arrest, detain, and intimidate me because of my public stand for peace and justice.”

His counsel, in a written address to the court, argued that the police invitation violates the provisions of Sections 35 and 41 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantee personal liberty and freedom of movement, and that the timing of the letter “reveals a deliberate intent to restrict the Applicant’s civic and constitutional rights.”

“The action of the police, coming just days after Uwazuruike’s press statement in support of a peaceful protest, is unconstitutional, unlawful, and a blatant attempt to silence a voice of peace,” Barr. Anyanwu submitted.

Observers have noted that the case represents not just a personal legal defense but also a broader test of Nigeria’s commitment to fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms.

Chief Uwazuruike, known globally for his advocacy of non-violence in the Biafra self-determination movement, reiterated that his response would remain lawful and peaceful. “Peace is not cowardice,” he maintained. “I will continue to seek justice through legitimate and constitutional means.”

The matter is expected to come up for hearing at the High Court of Imo State, Owerri, in the coming days.

As the legal process unfolds, many continue to watch closely how the Nigerian authorities will respond — whether by upholding constitutional liberties or by deepening the culture of suppression against peaceful civic activism.