By Sylvester Udemezue
Dear esteemed learned senior, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, I write this open letter in a spirit of professional respect, civic responsibility, and principled concern, following your public reaction to the assault on Don Pedro Obaseki by a group of youths in Edo State. Given your consistent self-identification as a human-rights activist, public-interest advocate, and promoter of the rule of law in Nigeria, your intervention in this matter understandably carries weight. For the sake of fairness, transparency, and proper context, it is important to reproduce your statement in full, exactly as published, so that readers may judge its content for themselves.
*FULL EXTRACT OF YOUR STATEMENT*
_”*Yes, this is democracy. However, that does not give anyone, particularly an Edo man, the right to attempt to ridicule and desecrate our centuries-old traditions simply because there is freedom of expression. We must respect our traditions, our throne and the essence that make us the Edo people that we are. We can’t and must not allow renegades to foist strange and unbecoming bravado shamelessness on us: we are Edo and we respect traditions and elders. Let those who have ears hear. Who do anyhow may see anyhow. Everything may be permissible, but not everything is beneficial. You may not agree with me, but I have no apologies for anyone. Nonsense”*_
It is against this statement, issued in the immediate aftermath of a violent physical assault, that my humble letter proceeds.
*VIOLENCE AS THE CONTEXT, Not THE ABSTRACTION*
Your statement appears to advance four central propositions:
(1). That democracy and freedom of expression do not permit ridicule or “desecration” of Edo traditions and the Benin throne. Unfortunately, dear Sir, you failed to educate your readers on how (if at all) Dr Don Pedro Obaseki had desecrated the Edo tradition to warrant the public embarrassment and jungle justice, mob action against him.
(2). That such perceived disrespect warrants collective resistance by “Edo people”;
(3). That dissenters may be described as “renegades” deserving social sanction; and
(4). That you owe no one any apologies for the position you took.
At a purely cultural or moral level, these views may resonate emotionally with some audiences. However, when examined through a constitutional and rule-of-law lens, particularly in the shadow of the recent physical assault against Dr Don Pedro Obaseki, they raise serious concerns. Most notably, your statement did not expressly condemn the violence already inflicted against Dr Don Pedro Obaseki. In moments of civic volatility, especially following the mob action, silence or rhetorical deflection by a lawyer and rights advocate such as you are, is not neutral. It risks being read as moral validation of illegality. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has repeatedly warned against such outcomes. In *GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE v. OJUKWU,* the Court stated that the rule of law presupposes that the state is subject to the law with the consequence that the government should be conducted within the framework of recognised rules and principles which restrict discretionary power. This principle applies with equal force to private citizens and groups. This, violence, whether by the state or by mobs, is an assault on the rule of law itself.
*TRADITION, RESPECT, AND THE LIMITS OF LAWFUL ENFORCEMENT*
No serious lawyer or constitutionalist disputes the importance of culture, tradition, or revered institutions. Nigerian law recognises and protects Nigerian culture and tradition. But the law also draws a firm line between respect and coercion. Culture and Tradition do not license intimidation, illegality, violence or jungle justice. Reverence does not justify violence. Respect compelled by fear ceases to be respect at all. In *GARBA V. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,* the Supreme Court condemned self-help in unequivocal terms, making it clear that no grievance, however strongly felt, permits individuals to take the law into their own hands.
Language such as “we must not allow” and the branding of dissenters as “renegades” risks collapsing the crucial distinction between lawful cultural disapproval and unlawful enforcement. That collapse is precisely what the rule of law exists to prevent.
*FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: LIMITED BY LAW, NOT BY MOBS*
You correctly acknowledge that Nigeria is a democracy. That acknowledgment carries constitutional consequences. *Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999* guarantees freedom of expression. That freedom is not absolute, but its limits are defined by law, not by collective outrage, threats, mob action or jungle justice. Where expression crosses lawful boundaries, the response must be institutional (complaint, investigation, adjudication, and remedy) not street justice. As courts have long recognised, freedom of expression is tested most severely by speech that offends, disturbs, or provokes, not by speech that comforts.
*THE MISSING QUESTION OF ALLEGED OFFENCE*
According to the report by TheCable and corroborated by Premium Times, PM News and all other media outlets in Nigeria, Dr. Don Pedro Obaseki explained after the attack that the alleged “offence” he was accused of was that he made a public statement while in London in which he said *“may Edo people live long and prosper”* instead of saying *”may the Oba live long and prosper.”* His attackers claimed that his remark was disrespectful toward the Oba of Benin, a charge he described as the purported reason for his abduction, beating, stripping, and public humiliation. Till date, no one has either (a) disputed or countered Dr Don Pedro Obaseki’s account or otherwise (b). disclosed in what way or ways Dr Don Pedro Obaseki had ridiculed, desecrated or disrespected the person or throne of the Oba of Benin or the Edo culture and tradition
Meanwhile, dear learned senior, Mr Aikpokpo-Martins, Sir, a striking omission in your public statement is a foundational legal inquiry: *what offence did Dr. Don Pedro Obaseki commit?* To date, no specific criminal, civil, or even customary violation has been clearly articulated by you to answer this question. Yet lawlessness, mob justice and physical punishment were publicly rationalised by you. This inversion (mob justice as punishment without allegation, investigation, or adjudication) is the antithesis of justice. Even assuming, purely for argument, that an offence had been committed (a claim yet to be substantiated), mob violence is not, and has never been, a lawful response under any civilised legal order.
*THE HIGHER BURDEN OF PUBLIC-INTEREST ADVOCACY*
Those who claim the mantle of public-interest advocacy bear a heavier burden than ordinary commentators. Their words shape norms, legitimise conduct, and either strengthen or weaken public confidence in lawful processes. The rule of law is not situational. It does not expand or contract based on cultural sentiment, political loyalty, or identity alignment. Selective outrage is not public-interest advocacy; it is opportunism, and opportunism, when clothed in the language of rights, damages genuine human-rights discourse. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in *MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE v. OJUKWU,* society cannot survive where might replaces right: whether that might comes from the state or from the street. In summary , your statement is an endorsement (direct or indirect) of the mob and jungle justice action meted out against Dr. Obaseki; the statement failed to condemn the physical attack that had already occurred; employs language capable of legitimising mob action, even if indirectly; collapses the distinction between cultural disapproval and lawful sanction, and substitutes collective emotion for individual accountability and due process. In volatile circumstances, such rhetoric, especially from a lawyer and self-styled human-rights activist and public-Interest advocate, is not neutral. It carries normative force and risks being read as moral validation of violence already committed.
*A MOMENT FOR REFLECTION AND RE-ANCHORING*
The public disavowal of the attack by the Oba of Benin, and His Majesty’s express caution against mob action, provided an opportunity for collective reflection and recommitment to lawful conduct. It reaffirmed that tradition and legality are not adversaries, but partners in a constitutional order.
Nigeria’s fragile democracy cannot endure the normalisation of vigilantism, especially when such vigilantism is cloaked in cultural rhetoric or moral certainty. I write, therefore, not in hostility, but in the hope that this moment invites a return to first principles: that violence against persons is unlawful; that expression is restrained by law, not mobs; and that lawyers, above all, have a duty to de-escalate conflict, not rationalise it.
(
Best professional regards, Sir.
Long live the rule of law!
Yours respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law, and Justice (TRM).
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
(01 January 2026))