A Nigerian court has ordered a female activist, Olamide Thomas, to be remanded in prison custody for allegedly issuing a death threat to President Bola Tinubu’s son, Seyi Tinubu.

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday delivered the ruling after Olamide was arraigned by the office of the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, before Justice Emeka Nwite on a three-count charge.

The police team of lawyers led by A.A. Egwu told the court that Olamide was arrested on allegations bordering on harassing and threatening Seyi Tinubu, IGP Egbetokun and the country’s Police force spokesman, ACP Muyiwa Adejobi, in a viral social media post back in October.

The police prosecutors told Justice Nwite that the activist had made a live video posted on Facebook in October, where she allegedly made threatening remarks cursing the President’s son, Egbetokun ahd Adejobi.

According to the police, she had live-streamed the video on the fourth year anniversary of the Lekki toll-gate massacre of Nigerian youths during the #EndSARS protest of 2020 where she said she and other protesters were brutalised by police officers during the memorial procession.

In the video, Thomas had reportedly accused police officers of harassment, claiming that they had been bullying and threatening her. She was also said to have rained curses on Tinubu and his family, Egbetokun and Adejobi, expressing deep grievances, invoking divine powers and issuing severe condemnations and predicting tragedy against them.

The police added that in the video, she stated that Seyi Tinubu would die this year, and misfortune and calamity would befall the Tinubu family, with intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Seyi Tinubu.

Reading out the charges, the police said that in count one, Olamide was alleged to have, “knowingly and intentionally transmitted communication in the form of video recording through computer system or network on her social media platforms wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language.”

“In the video, she stated that Mr Seyi Tinubu would die this year, and misfortune and calamity had befallen the Tinubu family, with intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Seyi Tinubu.

“The communication placed Seyi in fear of death, violence or bodily harm. The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (2) (a) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

“In count two, the defendant intentionally transmitted communication in the form of video recording wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Egbetokun.

“The communication placed Egbetokun in fear of death violence or bodily harm. The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (2) (a) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

“In count three, Olamide intentionally transmitted or cause the transmission of communication in the form of video recording wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language, stating that the children of Adejobi would all die before his eyes.

“She was quoted to have also said that he (Adejobi) will bury all his children in a single day, with intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr. Muyiwa Adejobi. The communication placed Adejobi in fear of death of his loved ones.”

After the counts were read to the defendant, she pleaded not guilty to the charge while her defence lawyer, T J. Aondo, SAN, sought to move an oral application on his client’s behalf but the request was turned down.

Justice Nwite therefore directed Aondo to file a formal bail application and adjourned the matter until December 30 for commencement of trial.

He consequently ordered the activist to be remanded in Suleja Correctional Centre pending the hearing of her bail application.

The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has kicked against the suspension of two of its council members, Arnold Kaluba, the LAZ Honorary Secretary and Junior Lawyers Committee Chair, along with Mulenga Sholomo, the House and Welfare Committee Chair.

The suspended lawyers have already approached the Lusaka High Court to seek a judicial review of their suspensions during the festive season.

In their filings, the two claim their suspension and referral to the Legal Practitioners Committee (LPC) for disciplinary action were illegal and procedurally flawed.

They further argued that the decision which was made without a fair hearing, has damaged their reputations as legal practitioners and threatens their livelihoods.

Zambia Monitor reports that the dispute that led to the suspension of the lawyers stemmed from a letter the duo sent to the LPC on behalf of 399 newly qualified lawyers, scheduled to be called to the Bar in December 2024.

These lawyers had repeatedly raised concerns about paying the full 2024 subscription fees, given they would only be practicing for a few weeks that year but in its response, the LPC offered a compromise which was a reduced fee of K3,025, half the usual K6,050 annual fee.

Dissatisfied with the lack of a council position on the matter, Kaluba and Sholomo independently appealed to the LPC, urging them to reconsider the fees and establish a clearer policy for future cases.

Their actions reportedly angered LAZ president Lungisani Zulu, who accused them of undermining the council and acting without authority which led to their suspension.

Following their letter, Zulu allegedly demanded their removal from the council’s WhatsApp group and issued an ultimatum to resign or face disciplinary action but when they refused to step down, letters of suspension were issued to them.

“The applicants claim this move violated the rules of natural justice, as they were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. Their repeated requests for a council meeting to discuss the matter were also ignored,” the medium reported.

“Kaluba and Sholomo are now asking the court to overturn their suspension and restore them to their positions. Among their demands are a declaration that their suspension was illegal and irrational, an order to reinstate them as council members, and an expedited judicial review of the decision.

“They also want the court to rule that LAZ failed to hear their side of the story, a move they argue was contrary to principles of fairness and transparency.

“The applicants maintain that their actions were driven by the welfare of LAZ members, particularly the newly qualified lawyers struggling to meet the financial demands of the profession.”