KADUNA, Nigeria — Amnesty International Nigeria has called on Nigerian authorities to drop the charges against Farida Isiak, a 23-year-old reporter with Nagarta Radio in Kaduna, after a court set aside her initial four-year prison sentence over a Facebook post criticising the police handling of her parents’ arrest.
The journalist was initially sentenced to four years in prison or a fine of ₦1.75 million by a Sharia Court in Kawo, Kaduna State, on October 21.
The sentence followed proceedings in a defamation case linked to her social media post.
However, her lawyer, Mukhtar Abubakar, challenged the proceedings.
Abubakar argued that she had entered a guilty plea and been sentenced before her legal representatives arrived, without fully understanding the implications of the plea.
The court subsequently set aside the initial proceedings and conviction, allowed Isiak to enter a fresh plea, and granted her bail after she pleaded not guilty.
Her case has been adjourned until November 3, 2026, as Amnesty described the initial proceedings as a “sham trial”.
It called for the charges to be dropped, and the conduct of the police officers involved to be independently investigated.
Dispute Over ₦100 Change Escalates into Police Case
According to reports, the incident began with a disagreement between Isiak’s mother, who sells charcoal, and a neighbour over ₦100 in change from a charcoal transaction.
The dispute reportedly occurred on October 19. Police subsequently arrested Isiak’s mother.
Her father was also detained after he went to the station to seek her release, according to family accounts reported by the media.
Isiak, who was at work when the incident unfolded, later published a Facebook post criticising the police handling of her parents’ detention.
Family sources said that officers wanted her to report to the police station and delete the post.
They alleged that she was compelled to apologise to the divisional police officer, Usman Adamu, in the hope of securing her parents’ release.
Despite reportedly deleting the post and apologising, Isiak was detained on the night of October 20.
The police accused her of defamation over the publication and subsequently took her before the Sharia Court in Kawo.
The allegations concerning the detention of her parents, the demand to delete the post and the circumstances surrounding her arrest have been reported by the media.
Four-Year Sentence Imposed After Initial Proceedings
On October 21, the court sentenced Isiak to four years’ imprisonment or a fine of ₦1.75 million.
Isiak said she appeared before the court without a lawyer and confirmed that she had authored the Facebook post.
She described the proceedings as having moved quickly from her appearance to sentencing.
Her lawyer, Mukhtar Abubakar, subsequently challenged the process.
He argued that she had pleaded guilty before her legal team arrived and had not fully understood the consequences of her plea.
According to Premium Times, the legal team intervened as arrangements were being made to transfer her to a correctional facility.
The defence raised concerns about her right to legal representation and a fair hearing.
The court then set aside the initial proceedings and conviction, permitted her to plead afresh, and granted bail after she entered a plea of not guilty.
The development means that the initial conviction no longer stands.
It does not, however, amount to a final determination of the underlying charge, which remains pending before the court.
Amnesty Calls for Charges Against Isiak to Be Dropped
Amnesty International Nigeria condemned the arrest and initial sentencing of Isiak.
It argued that the case raises serious concerns about freedom of expression, police accountability and the use of criminal proceedings against journalists.
The organisation said the authorities should drop what it described as bogus charges.
It called for an independent investigation into the conduct of the officers involved in the alleged detention of Isiak’s parents.
Amnesty argues that citizens must be able to criticise the conduct of public officials without facing arbitrary detention or punitive legal action.
The organisation’s position is that the journalist’s social media post should not be used to justify alleged abuses of police power, particularly where the underlying dispute was a minor civil disagreement.
Its demand for the charges to be dropped goes beyond the immediate question of bail.
Amnesty is seeking an end to the prosecution and accountability for the alleged conduct that preceded the journalist’s arrest.
Police Account and Response
The Kaduna State Police Command’s full response to Amnesty’s allegations was not available in the reports reviewed by This Dawn News.
However, Benin Web TV reported that police spokesperson Mansir Hassan said the Facebook post contained remarks targeting the police, an official and his family.
The report also said the police commissioner had intervened in an effort to resolve the matter amicably and called on the media to verify the different accounts.
The police account does not independently resolve the allegations concerning the detention of the parents of Isiak.
It does not also resolve the allegations concerning the demand for an apology or the fairness of the initial court proceedings.
Those issues require appropriate investigation and, where warranted, accountability through established legal and disciplinary procedures.
Press Freedom and the Right to a Fair Hearing
The Isiak case has renewed concerns about the protection of journalists and citizens who use social media to criticise public authorities.
Section 39 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, as amended, guarantees freedom of expression.
This includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, subject to applicable constitutional and legal limitations.
Section 36 provides fair-hearing protections, including safeguards for people facing criminal proceedings.
These protections do not mean that every social media publication is immune from lawful scrutiny.
However, allegations of defamation must be handled through lawful procedures that respect the rights of the accused and do not substitute coercion for due process.
The circumstances of Isiak’s initial plea and sentence have raised questions that the court’s decision to set aside the proceedings has brought into sharper focus.
The case also illustrates the distinction between challenging a publication through lawful procedures and allegations that public authority was used to pressure a journalist into removing criticism.
Retrial of Isiak Scheduled for November 3
Isiak has been released on bail, but the case remains unresolved.
Her lawyer told said that her father and other relatives would stand as sureties to ensure she attends subsequent proceedings.
The prosecution is expected to present its evidence when the case resumes on November 3.
Amnesty International continues to call for the charges to be dropped and for the alleged conduct of the police officers involved to be investigated independently.
For now, the court’s decision has removed the immediate threat of imprisonment under the initial conviction, but it has not ended the prosecution.
The next hearing will determine how the case proceeds, while the broader questions of freedom of expression, police accountability and fair treatment under the law remain central to the controversy.
