This account attributed to Wisdom Jonathan, a photographer who had travelled to Niger State for business purposes, demonstrates the negative effect of the state government’s ill-considered security measures.
“When we were coming into Minna, we were stopped at the police checkpoint around Pogo and they told the other two men I was with to remove their caps; they did,” Jonathan narrated to journalists. “One had punk and the other one had dreadlocks. They said they will have to cut their hair as it is now the law. I went to them and told them that we were coming to work in Minna and not living in Minna.”
He said the policemen insisted that they must cut their hair “as they were under the order to cut dreadlocks or unruly hair.” At some point, he said, “they brought out a fan belt and started hitting me with it, saying I was trying to stop them from doing their job. I was trying to be careful to ensure that the men I brought with me for the work returned safely.”
He continued: “They took my colleagues to the bush and told them that they had to pay a fine of N2,000. They gave them their Opay account and one of the men transferred N2,000 to the officer and the other man gave N2,000 cash.”
This incident allegedly happened in the aftermath of security measures unveiled by Niger State Governor Mohammed Bago at a recent high-level security meeting with traditional rulers and security agencies at the Government House, Minna. The governor had said “Angwa Daji and Barki Sale areas should be placed on serious security watch.”
Reports said the governor had condemned the wearing of dreadlocks, saying, “We will have zero tolerance for rascality. Anybody that you find with dreadlocks, arrest, cut the hair, and fine him. Nobody should carry any kind of haircut inside Minna. I have given marching orders to security agencies.”
Predictably, Bago’s reported remarks had triggered public outrage, with critics attacking the apparent criminalisation of dreadlocks. For a governor to publicly condemn a hairstyle is an overreach of their authority and sends a negative message about tolerance, diversity, and individual rights within the state. How someone chooses to wear their hair is generally considered a matter of personal expression and identity.
Such an official condemnation reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudices associated with dreadlocks, and can encourage discrimination against individuals who wear them. Individuals who wear dreadlocks are not necessarily a danger to society.
Following the negative public reaction, Bago claimed that “people misconstrued our words for people who have dreadlocks,” blaming it on “media propaganda.” He said the target of the policy was “that cult that is becoming a menace in Niger State.” He explained: We don’t have a problem with dreadlocks, but we have a problem with the cult here with dreadlocks. So, if you have dreadlocks and you have business, please come to Niger State.”
The governor missed the point. Targeting individuals with dreadlocks for forced haircuts and fines is unlawful. It does not matter if they are cultists. Jonathan and his partners, despite being in the state for business, were not exempt from this treatment, according to their reported experience.
The police spokesperson in the state was reported saying they “will verify, investigate and ascertain the personnel involved for further necessary action.”
Also, the Niger State Commissioner for Information and Strategy, Binta Mamman, explained that the government’s policy “is not a blanket criminalisation of hairstyles, but a preventive measure informed by intelligence and ongoing trends. The aim is to dismantle the formation and spread of these emerging groups before they become deeply rooted in the state.”
According to her, “The government has observed a disturbing trend among some youth groups with a distinct hairstyle that appears to be evolving into a form of group identity or cultism. The defaulters that will be arrested are those who wear certain dreadlocks in front while the back of their heads is shaved. The security agencies know them because they walk in droves.”
It is disturbing that the clarifications by the governor and the commissioner indicate that the state government’s policy on dreadlocks is still in effect. It is puzzling that they don’t seem to realise that such a policy is unlawful.
It is commendable that Governor Bago wants to tackle insecurity in his state. However, some of his ideas, including the one on dreadlocks, are questionable. He also introduced other measures that failed the rationality test.
For instance, he said “Anyone found in possession of any weapon, including knives and sticks, should be treated as an armed robber and if killed, the parents must pay for the bullet before releasing the corpse.” Possession of knives and sticks should not make someone an armed robbery suspect. And killing them without arrest and trial should not be the response.
He also said “Anyone going to seek bail for thugs from a police station should also be arrested. Any Mai-Angwa, Hakimi or Village Heads harbouring thugs should be dethroned and arrested.” Why should anyone trying to bail a thug be arrested? Does this mean that thugs cannot be bailed? Is that lawful?
He declared that “Anyone’s house found within Minna selling any kind of illicit drugs should be demolished and occupants arrested.” What if the house owner is innocent? If the occupants of a house are suspected drug dealers, how does demolishing the house which does not belong to them amount to justice?
It is concerning that these measures are not clear on lawful processes. The governor failed to emphasise the role of law enforcement agents in punishing crime. He seemed to encourage non-state actors to punish crime. That is a dangerous approach to fighting crime.
The lessons include the need for thoughtful and lawful security measures. It is counter-productive to fight crime with unlawful policies. Bago should rethink his ideas on tackling insecurity in the state. He can do so without unproductive drama and sensational moves.
