Tension broke out in Kano State on Sunday after police officers reportedly barricaded the venue of a planned meeting by the Tinubu Must Go movement, preventing members of the group from accessing the facility where they intended to discuss their opposition to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration.
The incident occurred on October 11, 2026, when members of the movement gathered at a privately hired event centre in Kano for a meeting focused on their political activities and preparations ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Abba Hikima, a lawyer and one of the movement’s conveners, raised the alarm in a live broadcast on his verified Facebook page, accusing the police of preventing the group from exercising its right to peaceful assembly.
According to Hikima, the movement had paid to use the venue but discovered that police officers had positioned themselves outside the facility, blocking members from entering.
He claimed that approximately 10 mobile police vehicles had been deployed to the location, describing the security presence as unnecessary and questioning the decision to restrict access to a privately hired meeting venue.
Hikima said the gathering was intended to provide an opportunity for members to exchange ideas, educate themselves and discuss how Nigerians could democratically remove the Tinubu administration from power in the next general election.
The lawyer maintained that the group had no intention of causing trouble and insisted that its activities were political rather than criminal.
He also disclosed that Kano State Commissioner of Police Ibrahim Adamu Bakori had contacted him before the scheduled meeting to discuss the gathering.
According to Hikima, the commissioner told him that the group should have informed the police about the planned event.
The lawyer said he explained that the meeting would take place in an enclosed environment and would be conducted peacefully. He argued that the gathering did not require police permission, citing constitutional protections for individual liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Hikima referenced Sections 35, 39 and 40 of the Nigerian Constitution in defending the group’s position.
Section 35 addresses personal liberty, Section 39 protects freedom of expression, while Section 40 guarantees the right to assemble freely and associate with others.
These constitutional provisions form an important part of Nigeria’s legal framework for civic participation and political engagement. However, the circumstances surrounding any restriction on an assembly must be assessed against the applicable law and the specific facts of the incident.
The convener also alleged that a police officer indicated that the authorities had concerns about the insignia worn by members of the movement rather than the group itself.
Hikima rejected the reported position, insisting that the movement’s name and message represented its political views and should not, by themselves, be treated as grounds for preventing the meeting.
He maintained that the group intended to express its opposition to the President through peaceful political engagement and democratic participation.
The Tinubu Must Go movement describes itself as a non-partisan platform seeking to mobilise Nigerians against the President’s administration ahead of the 2027 elections.
Its campaign is centred on criticism of the Federal Government’s economic policies, which its members blame for the financial difficulties experienced by many Nigerians.
The movement says it wants to educate citizens and encourage them to use their votes to express their dissatisfaction with the current administration.
The development in Kano has renewed attention to the relationship between law enforcement agencies and groups seeking to organise political meetings or express opposition to government policies.
Political gatherings, including those organised by groups critical of the government, can become contentious when participants and security agencies disagree over notification procedures, public safety concerns or the conditions under which an event should take place.
While police have responsibilities to maintain public order and protect lives and property, those responsibilities must be exercised consistently with applicable constitutional protections.
The circumstances surrounding Sunday’s incident therefore raise questions about the reasons for the police deployment, the basis for preventing access to the venue and whether any specific security concerns justified the action.
As of the latest available reports, the Kano State Police Command had not publicly provided a detailed explanation for the alleged blockade. The police spokesperson, CSP Abdullahi Haruna Kiyawa, reportedly did not respond to calls or messages seeking clarification.
The absence of an official explanation means that the police’s account of the incident, including any security considerations that may have informed the deployment, remains unclear.
Hikima, meanwhile, vowed that the movement would continue its political activities, including plans to organise protests and demonstrations.
Members who gathered at the venue were heard chanting slogans associated with the movement as the convener addressed the situation.
The incident comes as political organisations and opposition groups begin preparing for the 2027 general elections, when Nigerians will have another opportunity to elect their political representatives and decide whether to retain or replace the current administration.
For the Tinubu Must Go movement, the immediate dispute concerns access to its meeting venue. The broader issue, however, touches on the space available for political opposition, freedom of association and the responsibilities of security agencies in a democratic society.
Whether the police will subsequently clarify their position or the movement will announce further action remains to be seen.
For now, the incident has placed Kano at the centre of a fresh debate over political expression and the practical exercise of constitutional rights in Nigeria.
