John Ntui Ntuiabane, a Professor of Law, has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that Nigerian soldiers allegedly subjected him to public humiliation by forcing him to perform “frog jumps” while a senior lawyer, Chief J.J. Edem, was severely assaulted during a confrontation connected to a disputed plot of land in the Federal Capital Territory.
Ntuiabane made the allegations in court documents filed before Justice James Omotosho in an ongoing fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Minister of Defence, General Christopher Gwabin Musa (retd.); the Minister of State for Defence, Bello Matawalle; the Chief of Defence Staff; the Chief of Army Staff; the Chief of Naval Staff; former Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Zubairu Gambo (retd.); Lieutenant Ahmed Yerima; and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2635/2025, arose from an incident the professor said occurred on November 13, 2025, in Guduwa District, Abuja.
In a further counter-affidavit filed in response to processes submitted on behalf of the Chief of Army Staff, Ntuiabane alleged that armed military personnel subjected him and other civilians to degrading and inhuman treatment.
According to him, the soldiers compelled him to perform what they described as “frog jumps” in full view of members of the public, while Chief Edem, whom he described as a senior member of the Nigerian Bar, was allegedly beaten mercilessly.
“I, Professor John Ntui Ntuiabane, Esq., was subjected to public odium by compelling me to what these untamed men call ‘frog jump’ while a colleague and very senior member at the Bar was beaten up mercilessly,” he stated in the court documents.
In paragraphs three, four and five of the affidavit, the professor identified some of the individuals he claimed were directly affected by the alleged military action.
He stated that the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, was among those whose rights were allegedly violated during the confrontation.
Ntuiabane further claimed that retired Major Simeone Ngah had his land confiscated by one of the defendants, while Edem was allegedly assaulted and subjected to degrading treatment by armed personnel whom he linked to the fourth and fifth defendants in the suit.
He also told the court that numerous young people witnessed the incident but could not all be individually listed because of their large number.
“The teeming youths are too numerous to be contained on plain sheets of paper,” the affidavit stated.
The professor maintained that the young people and other vulnerable citizens shared common grievances arising from the incident and that the suit was instituted not only to enforce his own rights but also to protect underprivileged Nigerians whose constitutional rights had allegedly been violated.
Ntuiabane argued that Nigerian courts have jurisdiction to entertain representative public-interest litigation brought on behalf of unidentified or unascertainable groups whose fundamental rights may have been infringed.
He also challenged the credibility of the affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the Army, alleging contradictions in the depositions made by Gabriel Agwu, who swore to the processes for the Chief of Army Staff.
The professor accused the military authorities of deliberately failing to produce the officers who were directly involved in the alleged confrontation and assault.
He said photographs taken by some youths who witnessed the incident were attached to the court documents as exhibits supporting his claims.
According to him, the photographs allegedly showed military personnel manhandling Wike and members of the minister’s entourage during the confrontation.
Ntuiabane urged the court to summon the officers allegedly involved in the incident for cross-examination.
The professor further claimed that an unnamed lawyer who was present during the November 13 incident informed him that the confrontation had been planned in advance.
He alleged that some of the individuals present made statements suggesting that Britain, Nigeria’s former colonial power, had handed control of the country to them.
Ntuiabane also alleged that the individuals questioned President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of Wike as FCT minister because they considered him an “enemy of the north.”
The allegations have not been independently established and remain subject to determination by the court.
In the substantive suit, the professor is asking the Federal High Court to determine whether the actions allegedly taken by executive and military authorities violated constitutional protections relating to the rights to life, dignity of the human person, freedom of movement and freedom from discrimination.
He is also asking the court to determine whether military authorities can lawfully validate actions allegedly carried out by officers acting without lawful authority.
Ntuiabane further wants the court to determine whether some of the defendants can be compelled to retract public statements which he claimed were capable of provoking unrest.
When the matter came before Justice Omotosho last week, the court adjourned proceedings until October 8, 2026, for hearing.
In this article