The Presidency on Thursday, December 26; lampooned reports that it disregarded the rule of law in relation to the release of Omoyele Sowore and former National Security Adviser (NSA); Sambo Dasuki.
In an interview about the case involving Sowore and Dasuki on Channels TV; the presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu said, “The government is not compromising anything.
“The decision to keep them there (in detention) was strongly founded in the law.”
The duo was separately held in detention by the Department of State Service (DSS); despite court orders granting them bail.
Dasuki, who served as national security adviser under former President Goodluck Jonathan; was in detention for over four years despite four court orders, including an ECOWAS court granting him bail.
He is currently on trial for allegedly misappropriating arms funds while in government.
In July 2019, the Court of Appeal in Abuja declared; that the continued detention of Dasuki by the DSS was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.
Sowore, on the other hand, was arrested by DSS operatives on Saturday, August 3; after calling for a nationwide protest tagged #RevolutionNow.
The FG explained that Sowore was detained after an alleged plot to overthrow President Muhammadu Buhari. The activist was charged with treasonable felony, money laundering and terrorism.
After disobeying two court orders that granted Sowore bail within the first 124 days he spent in detention; the DSS released him on Thursday, December 5 and rearrested him on Friday, December 6 with no court order to do so.
Due to widespread anger and protest regarding the continued detention; the FG eventually ordered their release on Tuesday, December 24.
However, Shehu posited that the government has done nothing extra-judicial in holding them in detention.
“In a situation where the fundamental right of an individual is a threat to that of the larger society; the right of the individuals have to be sacrificed,” Shehu said.
He said their eventual release was because the government; “wants to set an important example of obedience to the law that even when you disagree with what the court says you should do.”