Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has called for the immediate release of five men arrested in Maiduguri, Borno State, over their alleged involvement in the production and wearing of T-shirts bearing the inscription, “Tinubu Must Go.”
The call came amid growing debate over freedom of political expression after the five men were arrested and subsequently taken before a court in Maiduguri.
The police, according to a First Information Report (FIR) issued by the State Criminal Investigation Department, accused the men of criminal conspiracy, inciting disturbance, disturbance of public peace and thuggery.
The document reportedly linked the allegations to an incident around the West End Roundabout area of Maiduguri on September 25, 2026.
Police alleged that the defendants had conspired to print and wear the T-shirts with the intention of causing a breach of public peace.
The charges were reportedly filed under Sections 60, 78, 79 and 392 of the Borno State Penal Code.
The five defendants were identified as Baba Aji Gremami, 44; Mustapha Abba Yemen, 28; Abbacha Mohammed Ali, 32; Adam Umar Gubio, 21; and Abdulhamid Mohammed, 21.
Reports indicate that the men pleaded not guilty when they appeared before Chief Magistrate Court I in Maiduguri.
Their lawyers subsequently applied for bail, with the court reportedly fixing October 6 for a ruling on the application, while the substantive case was scheduled for October 26.
Reacting to the development, Atiku argued that political disagreement and criticism of government should not be treated as criminal conduct in a democratic society.
His position was conveyed in a statement issued by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council.
Atiku questioned why citizens should face arrest for expressing dissatisfaction with the government through a political slogan, particularly when such expressions do not, in themselves, amount to violence or a physical threat.
He maintained that the words “Tinubu Must Go” should be understood as a political demand rather than a criminal act.
“‘Tinubu Must Go’ is a demand for political change. It is not a weapon, a threat or a crime. President Tinubu can disagree with those words.
“He can campaign against them. He cannot make people disappear into custody for wearing them,” Atiku said.
The former vice president also used the development to revisit President Bola Tinubu’s political history, particularly his participation in protests against fuel price increases during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
Atiku argued that Nigerians who disagree with the current administration should equally have the opportunity to publicly express their grievances.
He said the country was experiencing significant economic pressure, with the cost of basic necessities such as food, transportation, electricity and petrol placing additional burdens on households.
According to him, many families are being forced to adjust their lifestyles as their incomes struggle to keep pace with rising expenses.
“Tinubu opposed Jonathan’s fuel policy in the streets. Nigerians are living with the consequences of Tinubu’s fuel policy in their homes. Parents are cutting meals. Workers can scarcely afford the journey to work. Families are being crushed by bills that rise faster than their income,” he said.
Atiku further questioned whether the principles of democratic participation should apply differently to political leaders and ordinary citizens.
He recalled that Tinubu, as an opposition politician, had openly criticised policies of the Jonathan administration and participated in public protests.
Atiku argued that the same political environment should allow Nigerians to criticise Tinubu and demand a change in leadership without fear of intimidation.
“And when citizens put their anger on a T-shirt, the response is reportedly an arrest. What kind of democracy grants its President the right to protest, then takes that right away from everyone else?” he asked.
The former vice president therefore urged the authorities to provide clear information about the circumstances surrounding the detention and prosecution of the five men.
He also demanded that the defendants be granted access to their families and lawyers and called for their release if the political message on the T-shirts was the sole reason for the action against them.
The controversy comes at a time when political activities are intensifying across Nigeria ahead of the 2027 general elections. The “Tinubu Must Go” slogan has featured in opposition protests and other political activities, while political parties and their supporters have increasingly begun mobilising ahead of the elections.
The Borno State chapter of the African Democratic Congress has also condemned the arrest, describing the action as an infringement on political expression and demanding the release of the five men. The party said citizens should be able to express political opinions peacefully.
However, the police case is based on allegations that go beyond the wording on the T-shirts. The FIR reportedly alleges that the defendants acted together and intended to cause a breach of public peace, which is the basis of the charges before the court.
There have also been claims that the arrests followed a directive allegedly issued by Borno State Governor Babagana Umara Zulum to the state Commissioner of Police. However, reports carrying the allegation have noted that it has not been independently verified, and the police document itself focuses on the alleged conduct of the defendants and the charges against them.
For Atiku, however, the case has raised a wider question about the space available for political dissent in Nigeria.
He maintained that citizens should not lose their right to express political opinions simply because those opinions are critical of the government in power.
“Tinubu was free to tell Jonathan that his policies were hurting Nigerians. Nigerians must be free to tell Tinubu that his policies are hurting them. Release these five citizens now,” Atiku said.
The five men remain defendants in the case, and the allegations against them have yet to be determined by the court.