Nobody Has a Monopoly on Courage, and Ekiti Is Not a Theatre for Political Gragra!
It is a preferred tourism destination.
Haba! Haba!! Haba!!!
What is this frightening story about Omoyele Sowore being kidnapped in Ekiti?
Kidnapped?
In Ado-Ekiti?
By whom? Under what circumstances? And on the strength of what verifiable evidence?
Before these elementary questions could be satisfactorily answered, the allegation had travelled across social media, creating the disturbing impression that Ekiti had suddenly become a dangerous territory where prominent visitors could be abducted with reckless abandon.
Haba! Must every confrontation become a national emergency? Must every disagreement be elevated into a political conspiracy? And must the reputation of an entire state become collateral damage in the process?
On Friday, October 30, 2026, reports emerged that Sowore had been kidnapped by armed thugs in Ado-Ekiti.
The Ekiti State Police Command subsequently denied the kidnapping allegation. According to its spokesperson, SP Sunday Abutu, Sowore was involved in an altercation with some individuals at a restaurant in the Dalimore area of Ado-Ekiti. Police operatives reportedly intervened, rescued him and took him to the Police Hospital for medical attention.
Sowore disputes that account, insisting that he and his associates were attacked by armed men. His allegation deserves investigation, just as the police account deserves scrutiny.
But one question remains fundamental: At what point did a disputed confrontation become an established case of kidnapping?
This distinction is not merely semantic. It is legal, ethical and consequential.
An altercation is not necessarily an assault. An assault is not automatically an abduction. And an allegation of kidnapping does not become an established fact merely because it is repeated by a thousand social media accounts.
The law is concerned with evidence, not excitement. Journalism is concerned with verification, not sensationalism. Responsible activism should be concerned with truth, not the political advantages of public alarm.
As a lawyer, journalist and tourism development advocate who has devoted considerable energy to promoting Ekiti, I find the reputational implications of this incident particularly troubling.
A destination’s reputation is an economic asset. It is cultivated over years through public investment, private enterprise, institutional credibility and the collective conduct of its people. Yet that reputation can be severely damaged within minutes by a frightening narrative circulated without sufficient verification.
What happens when a prospective tourist in Lagos, Abuja, London or Houston reads that a prominent activist has been kidnapped in Ado-Ekiti?
What impression does that create about Ikogosi Warm Springs Resort, Arinta Waterfalls, our hospitality establishments, cultural attractions and investment opportunities?
How many intending visitors might quietly reconsider their travel plans?
These are not frivolous questions. They go to the heart of destination confidence, tourism economics and the responsibility that accompanies public communication.
Indeed, the controversy erupted on the eve of the Ikogosi Marathon, an event intended to showcase Ekiti’s attractions and strengthen its growing profile in sports tourism.
Should the efforts of tourism investors, hospitality operators, event organisers and ordinary Ekiti citizens be undermined by a kidnapping allegation whose circumstances remain disputed?
Certainly not!
However, there is a deeper issue here.
Nobody has a monopoly on courage. Nobody has a monopoly on the capacity for confrontation. And nobody should mistake another person’s restraint for an absence of strength.
There is an instinct for self-preservation in every human being. Even the gentlest individual possesses the capacity to resist perceived aggression.
Newton’s third law tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Although that is a principle of physics rather than a rule governing human behaviour, it offers a useful metaphor for understanding the dangers of persistent provocation.
But human society is not a laboratory of uncontrolled reactions. Civilisation demands something superior to instinct: reason, restraint, dialogue and obedience to the law.
That is precisely why no person should deliberately provoke another, and why nobody should respond to provocation with unlawful violence.
There is a limit to gragra!
There is a limit to needless confrontation!
There is a limit to the assumption that political visibility confers an exclusive right to intimidate, harass or disregard others!
Ojú mi là lè kọ́!
A man who considers himself a thunderstorm in Abuja should appreciate that other communities have weathered tornadoes.
But the true strength of Ekiti is not demonstrated through threats or physical confrontation. It resides in the intellectual sophistication of its people, their historical courage, their attachment to dignity and their capacity to defend their rights within the framework of the law.
Ekiti is not a land of cowards.
Neither is it a land that celebrates lawlessness.
Àṣejù kò dára!
I have always maintained that activism is an indispensable instrument of democratic development. Indeed, without courageous dissent, society risks becoming a comfortable sanctuary for oppression.
But there is a fundamental difference between principled activism and performative confrontation.
One seeks reform through conviction, evidence and public persuasion. The other risks reducing serious public questions to spectacles of personal antagonism.
Political activism derives its moral authority not from the volume of its noise but from the integrity of its methods.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and movement. These protections extend to Sowore as much as to every other Nigerian.
He has every right to visit Ekiti, criticise the government, organise lawful political activities and express unpopular opinions.
Nobody has the right to assault, threaten or intimidate him for exercising those freedoms.
But constitutional liberty is reciprocal.
The same legal order that protects an activist also protects the dignity, liberty and security of those who disagree with him.
Freedom is not the exclusive property of the loudest person in the room.
Neither does the possession of a microphone confer immunity from accountability.
I therefore reject two equally dangerous propositions: that an activist may be assaulted because his opinions are provocative, and that an activist’s allegations must automatically be accepted as established facts because he enjoys political prominence.
Both propositions are incompatible with the rule of law.
If Sowore was assaulted, let the perpetrators be identified and prosecuted.
If kidnapping occurred, let the evidence establish it.
If the original kidnapping alarm was inaccurate, let it be corrected.
And if anybody knowingly manufactured false information to create public panic, let the appropriate legal consequences follow.
But until the investigation is concluded, nobody should substitute political sentiment for proof.
I am particularly concerned about the casual manner in which some commentators treat the reputation of Ekiti as expendable.
Ekiti is not merely a geographical expression. It is a community of people, institutions, investments, cultural assets and economic aspirations.
Our hospitality industry depends on confidence. Our tourism sector depends on perception. Our investment prospects depend partly on the credibility of our security environment.
Those who circulate alarming claims about a destination must therefore recognise that words can produce consequences far beyond the immediate controversy.
A sensational headline may generate thousands of engagements for its author while imposing reputational costs on an entire community.
That is why responsible journalism insists on verification, attribution, balance and the distinction between allegation and fact.
Ekiti should not be convicted in the court of social media without evidence.
And let me address Sowore and his associates directly.
Ekiti is not an extension of anybody’s political battlefield in Abuja.
Our hospitality should not be mistaken for weakness. Our peaceful disposition should not be interpreted as helplessness. And our respect for constitutional freedoms should never be confused with an endorsement of intimidation or disorder.
But equally, anybody who believes that Sowore’s political activities justify attacking him must understand that Ekiti’s honour cannot be defended through criminality.
The dignity of Ekiti is best protected by the rule of law, not by the law of the jungle.
The police must therefore conduct a transparent and impartial investigation. Available eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, CCTV recordings and other relevant materials should be examined.
Let the facts speak.
Let justice prevail.
Let the innocent be protected and the guilty held accountable.
Above all, let the people of Ekiti refuse to become unwilling participants in imported political hostilities.
We have more important responsibilities.
We are building a tourism economy. We are attracting investment. We are developing our natural and cultural assets. We are strengthening our hospitality infrastructure and creating opportunities for our young people.
These ambitions deserve more attention than the endless theatrics of political confrontation.
Ekiti welcomes Sowore. Ekiti welcomes his critics. Ekiti welcomes political activists, investors, tourists and Nigerians of every persuasion.
What Ekiti rejects is violence, intimidation, deliberate misinformation and the reckless destruction of public confidence.
Nobody should be assaulted in Ekiti.
Nobody should be intimidated in Ekiti.
And nobody should falsely portray Ekiti as a kidnapping territory.
Sowore and co should stop dragging Ekiti into their political drama!
Our state is too important, our reputation too valuable and our collective aspirations too significant to be sacrificed on the altar of sensationalism.
Ekiti is the Land of Honour, not a Land of Horror!
Wòjú ooo!
Wale Ojo-Lanre Esq
