The Department of State Services (DSS) has filed five terrorism-related charges against activist Muhammad Mahdi Shehu at the Federal High Court in Kaduna, following his rearrest by security operatives. The charges stem from Shehu’s controversial social media activity, including claims that the Nigerian government had allowed France to establish a military base in Northern Nigeria.
Shehu, who initially faced arrest for allegedly spreading misleading videos online, was granted bail two weeks ago by a Kaduna State High Court. He was released on a N3 million bond and required to provide two reputable clerics as sureties. However, his rearrest prompted the DSS to file an ex-parte motion under Section 66 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, seeking a 60-day detention order for further investigation. Justice Rilwan Aikawa of the Federal High Court granted the DSS’s request, allowing Shehu to remain in custody during the investigation process.
The DSS accuses Shehu of intentionally spreading false information through social media, which allegedly incited public panic and threatened national security. The charges filed against him include the dissemination of false publications designed to cause public alarm, spreading terrorism-related false information, and making false treasonable allegations. The agency also claims that Shehu’s actions violated multiple laws, including the Criminal Code Act, the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
The DSS has alleged that Shehu shared doctored videos and false narratives intended to incite disorder and destabilize the country. While the agency maintains that these charges are a serious response to the spreading of misinformation, critics argue that the use of national security laws in this case could be an attempt to suppress dissent and stifle free expression.
The legal proceedings and the charges against Shehu have sparked debates over the limits of free speech and the role of national security in addressing online content. As the case progresses, many are watching closely to see how the courts balance national security concerns with the protection of civil liberties and freedom of expression in the country.