“Judicial Tech Paranoia or Political Suppression? Sowore’s ‘Spy Glasses’ Expose Nigeria’s Crackdown on Dissent
A fiery courtroom clash between Nigerian activist Omoyele Sowore and Justice Musa Suleiman Liman erupted this week, not over legal arguments, but over a pair of AI-enabled glasses—a spectacle critics are calling a blatant display of judicial bias and technophobic overreach in a system accused of silencing dissent.
The drama unfolded when Justice Liman halted proceedings to interrogate Sowore about his high-tech eyewear, insinuating they harbored covert recording devices. “Do those glasses have a camera?” the judge demanded, casting suspicion on the device. Sowore, a former presidential candidate and outspoken critic of the government, fired back, branding the inquiry as “absurd” and emblematic of the judiciary’s “archaic grasp of technology.” He clarified the glasses were prescription-based and AI-enhanced to assist his vision, mocking the court’s “paranoia over innovation.”
The confrontation deepened as Sowore accused Liman of weaponizing judicial authority to restrict his freedoms, citing the denial of his passport renewal—a move he claims deliberately isolates him from his family in the U.S. “Is this incompetence or malice?” Sowore charged, alleging the judge’s actions reflect a broader pattern of state-sponsored harassment.
Liman, unmoved, ordered Sowore to remove the “distracting” glasses, halting the hearing until compliance. Reluctantly, Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, negotiated their removal, but not before the exchange exposed simmering tensions between Nigeria’s judiciary and civil liberties.
The trial, rooted in cybercrime charges tied to Sowore’s social media posts calling for Inspector General of Police Kayode Egbetokun’s resignation, took a darker turn as a police officer testified to surveilling Sowore’s online activity “under orders from above.” The officer admitted to monitoring Sowore’s accounts after his criticism of the IGP went viral, though he sidestepped questions about whether the surveillance persists.
Abubakar denounced the case as “legally barren,” arguing jurisdictional overreach and procedural violations. Yet the court pushed forward, adjourning until *June 2025*—a two-year delay activists argue grants the state ample time to intimidate Sowore and drain his resources.
Outside the courtroom, Sowore doubled down, condemning Nigeria’s judiciary as a “puppet of political oppression.” He lambasted the passport denial as proof of a “rotten system” colluding to stifle dissent. “How can citizens trust courts that fear glasses but turn a blind eye to tyranny?” he asked, framing the incident as a microcosm of Nigeria’s democratic backsliding.
Critics now question whether Liman’s fixation on “spy glasses” was genuine concern or a pretext to sideline a prominent opposition voice—and whether Nigeria’s courts are courtrooms of justice or theaters of control.
