Judge orders former bar association leader to remain in secret police detention

On Friday, the Federal High Court in Abuja decided that Gabriel Nkup Tsenyen, a former Chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association's Shendam branch in Plateau State, should be held by the Department of State Services until a ruling is made on whether his new arraignment is proper.

n

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik scheduled August 20 to hear arguments on whether Tsenyen, also an All Progressives Congress chieftain in Plateau State, can be retried on allegations of cyberstalking and inciting public disturbances.

n

The development came after the DSS attempted to arraign Tsenyen on a fresh two-count charge related to cyberstalking and incitement to breach public peace.

n

However, Tsenyen's lead counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Emmanuel Esene, objected to the arraignment, stating that his client had already been arraigned on the same allegations and that the case had been adjourned until September 28 for trial.

n

Esene argued that allowing the fresh arraignment would expose his client to double jeopardy, but counsel for the DSS, Muinat Oladunjoye, claimed she was unaware of any previous charge against Tsenyen.

n

Justice Abdulmalik requested a copy of the earlier charge from the defence, which Esene provided, and then asked for the record of proceedings in the earlier case to determine whether Tsenyen had indeed been arraigned on the same allegations.

n

The defence stated that it could not produce the record immediately, as the fresh charge had been a surprise to them, received on Thursday, August 13.

n

Justice Abdulmalik ordered the record of proceedings in the earlier trial to be produced on August 20, and in the meantime, Tsenyen was to be remanded at the DSS detention facility.

n

The fresh charge was filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Iseoluwa Oyedepo, and includes allegations that Tsenyen sent a malicious publication on a WhatsApp platform in May 2026.

n

The prosecution alleged that Tsenyen knew the publication was false and sent it to cause annoyance, insult, and other negative emotions in the community, contrary to Section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes Act, 2015, as amended.

n

In the second count, the prosecution alleged that Tsenyen sent the publication with the intent to incite or cause a breach of public peace, contrary to Section 114 of the Penal Code Act, 2004.

n

The court will decide on August 20 whether the fresh charges relate to allegations for which Tsenyen had previously been arraigned and whether the proposed fresh trial is legally permissible.