The Legality of Protests and the Limitations According to the constitution as a Followup to Sowore's Revolution Now.

The only constitutional limitation to protest is that it must be peaceful and not be violent. Once a protest is peaceful, it cannot be validly termed to be treason, treasonable or terrorism.
This is the conclusion that may be drawn from a combined reading of the provisions of sections 40, 41 and 45 of the Constitution.

Section 40 guarantees the FUNDAMENTAL right to join or form a political party, trade union or any other association and to assemble freely and take action for the protection of one's interest.

Section 41 guarantees the Fundamental right of free movement. Section 45 provides that the Fundamental rights may be derogated from by law for the protection of the rights and freedom of others, in the interest of public safety, public order, public morality, etc.

Therefore, once a protest is peaceful such that it does not jeopardise the right of others, it is unconstitutional to deprive "any person" the right to protest contrary to the manner in which participants in the "#RevolutionNow# were viciously brutalised in ways that amount to crimes against humanity.

Sections 37 and 41 of the criminal code that provide for the offences of treason and reasonable felony, respectively, do not categorise peaceful protest as offences. While section 37 of the Criminal Code concerns a person who "levies war  against the state, in order to intimidate or  overawe the President or the Governor of a state, is guilty of treason, and is liable to the punishment of death"

Section 41 of the Criminal Code concerns  the forming of an intention to remove the President or Governor during their terms of office in ways otherwise than by constitutional means.

Now, the questions to pose are:
1. Does open peaceful protest amount to waging a war against the State?
2. Does open peaceful protest amount to an intention to remove the president by an unconstitutional means?

I humbly submit that as long as conduct of peaceful protest is a fundamental right, it can never amount to treason or terrorism.

Even if the authorities allege that a crime has been comitted by the act of peaceful protest, the victims of arrest ought to be taken to court within 24 hours where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres (s. 35(5)(a) of the Constitution). Therefore, Sowore and others who were arrested in Lagos ought to have been taken to court within 24 hours of their arrrest. It is only a suspect who is alleged to have committed capital offence that may be deprived of this constiutional right by virtue of section 35(7) of the Constitution and Sowere and others have not been accused of capital offence.

Indeed, peaceful protest in which participants are armed only with placards stating their demands can never qualify as an offence under the Terrorism Prevention Act.

By virtue of section 2(b) of the Terrorism Prevention Act, which categorises an act that seriously destabilises or destroys the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of the country as an act of terrorism, it is the Federal Government that has constrained the constitutional fundamental right of peaceful protest that is indeed qualified to be tagged the Terrorist under the Terrorism Prevention Act and not the peaceful protesters.

The placards of the protesters called for an end to insecurity, payment of the statutory minimum wage, non discriminatory fight against corruption,  reversal of all past privatisations, etc. These demands are within the context of  sections 24(2)(b); 16(2)d); 15(5); and 16(2)(c), respectively.

Peaceful protests to realise constitutionally backed demands cannot qualify for treason or terrorism.

We call for the release of all detained persons. The revolution they call for is not different from the Revolution which PMB called for in 2011 - radical improvement in the living conditions of ordinary people.