By Kehinde Nubi
The controversy surrounding the Niger State governor’s initial ban on dreadlocks illustrates how those in positions of power may disregard constitutional safeguards and act with impunity. Although Governor Mohammed Umaru Bago has since rescinded the directive following widespread public condemnation, the incident raises serious questions about the scope and limits of executive authority in Nigeria. This episode is not merely a one-off irrational policy misstep; it is a deliberate and dysfunctional abuse of power which exposes underlying governance attitudes and the fragility of fundamental rights in the country.
Governor Bago’s original order was sweeping in nature. He instructed security agencies to arrest any individual found with dreadlocks, forcibly shave their hair, and impose fines. He linked the hairstyle to cult-related activities and insecurity in Minna, the state capital. This directive was part of a broader security crackdown that included restrictions on commercial motorcycles and threats to demolish houses alleged to harbour criminals. The governor declared “fire for fire” against perceived criminality and warned parents to caution their children accordingly.
Public reaction was swift and overwhelmingly critical. The order was widely seen as dehumanising, discriminatory, lacking legal foundation, and violating fundamental human rights. Civil rights organisations, legal practitioners, and ordinary citizens condemned the directive, describing it as unconstitutional and a grave threat to civil liberties.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) vests executive powers in the President and state governors, respectively. However, these powers are not unfettered. Section 5(1) provides that executive authority must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and any law made by the National Assembly or State House of Assembly. Executive directives must therefore be grounded in express constitutional or statutory authority and must not exceed legal limits. For transparency and accountability, such directives must be formal, written, and published. Oral directives, especially those affecting fundamental rights, lack the requisite formality and are generally invalid.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that executive actions without clear legal authority are ultra vires and unlawful. For example, in Attorney-General of the Federation v. Alhaji Bello Tukur (2010), the Court reaffirmed that executive powers must be exercised within constitutional bounds.
Similarly, in Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003), the Court recognised the power of the executive to modify laws to conform with the Constitution but cautioned that such powers must not violate the doctrine of separation of powers or usurp legislative functions. Any executive action exceeding constitutional authority is invalid.
The Niger State directive to arrest and forcibly shave individuals with dreadlocks is manifestly unconstitutional. It violates several fundamental rights guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution, including: Right to Dignity of the Person (Section 34): Forcibly shaving a person’s hair constitutes an affront to personal dignity and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. Right to Personal Liberty (Section 35): Arbitrary arrest and detention based solely on hairstyle, absent reasonable suspicion of criminal offence, is unlawful. Right to Freedom from Discrimination (Section 42): Targeting persons with dreadlocks – often associated with particular cultural or religious identities – amounts to unconstitutional discrimination.
A foundational principle of Nigerian criminal law is that no person may be convicted of an offence unless the offence and penalty are clearly defined by written law. This was established in Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), where the Court held that acts not defined as offences in written law cannot be criminalised.
Applying this principle, there is no law in Nigeria criminalising the wearing of dreadlocks. The attempt to arrest and punish individuals based on hairstyle is therefore without legal basis and ultra vires. The Nigeria Police Force has also clarified that wearing dreadlocks does not constitute an offence, further underscoring the illegality of the governor’s order.
Profiling individuals solely based on hairstyle is arbitrary and discriminatory. It undermines constitutional protections and fosters suspicion and stigmatisation. The Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, conscience, personal liberty, and protection from discrimination. Associating dreadlocks with criminality or cultism prejudges individuals without evidence, violating the presumption of innocence—a cornerstone of Nigerian criminal jurisprudence.
Such profiling erodes the rule of law and opens the door to human rights abuses, encouraging law enforcement to target individuals based on appearance rather than conduct, increasing risks of harassment, unlawful detention, and abuse of power.
It is gravely ironic that a heavily-bearded fellow is the one complaining about dreadlocks. Following intense public backlash, Governor Bago clarified that the crackdown was not against dreadlocks per se, but against criminals allegedly using the hairstyle as a disguise. He insisted law-abiding citizens were not under threat and that the policy targeted criminal elements only. While this clarification was fair, it was like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted as security agents may have already run to town with the initial directive.
The clarification did not address the fundamental legal and ethical deficiencies of the initial directive. The fact that the order was issued at all – and that it took public outrage to prompt a retraction – speaks to a troubling disregard for constitutional norms and due process, reflecting a progressive culture of impunity foisted on Nigerians.
The Niger State episode is emblematic of a broader trend of executive overreach in Nigeria, where governors and officials issue sweeping directives without regard for legal limits or individual rights. The Constitution requires all executive actions be anchored in law, subject to checks and balances, and respectful of fundamental rights.
When leaders act outside these boundaries, they undermine the rule of law and erode public trust in government. Security measures, no matter how well-intentioned, must be implemented within the ambit of the law and with due respect for individual freedoms. The judiciary, civil society, and citizens all have a role in defending constitutional norms and holding leaders accountable.
The initial ban on dreadlocks by the Niger State governor was reckless, unwarranted, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. It lacked any statutory foundation, violated multiple provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, and was an affront to human dignity, liberty, and equality. The eventual retraction of the policy, while welcome, does not erase the legal and ethical failures it exposed, nor the impunity it represents.
This episode should serve as a catalyst for a broader conversation on the limits of executive power, the importance of accountability and constitutional governance, and the need to protect the rights and dignity of all Nigerians, regardless of appearance, culture, or belief.
•Nubi is a lawyer based in Lagos
