KADUNA, Nigeria — A reported police raid on JKD TV/Hamada Radio in Kaduna has raised fresh questions over the limits of police power, the safety of journalists and the protection of independent media in Nigeria.
Amnesty International Nigeria said heavily armed police officers invaded the station in Millennium City, Kaduna State, on Friday, September 11, 2026, and arrested the station’s General Manager, Charles Abah, and a security guard.
The rights organisation described the operation as an “unlawful and outrageous invasion” and said the two men were arbitrarily arrested.
Atlantic Post could not independently establish from publicly available police records, as at the time of publication, the exact legal basis for the operation or whether the Kaduna State Police Command had issued a statement specifically responding to the allegations involving JKD.
That gap is significant.
The Kaduna command has continued to issue public statements on other incidents this week, including its handling of a political rally and criminal investigations, suggesting that a clear account of the station operation should be available if the command conducted the raid under a formal investigation.
What Amnesty says happened
According to Amnesty International Nigeria, police officers arrived at the JKD TV/Hamada Radio facility in Millennium City with instructions to arrest journalist Zainab Salihu Yabagi.
The organisation said police told the station they had been directed to arrest Yabagi over a video explainer produced by JKD Radio and Television concerning Ibrahim Kabir Masari, President Bola Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Political Affairs.
Amnesty said Yabagi had already been declared wanted by the Kaduna State Police Command and that her husband had also been arrested.
The organisation condemned the police action in unusually direct terms.
“Amnesty International strongly condemns the unlawful and outrageous invasion of JKD TV Hamada Radio Network located at Millennium City Kaduna by a contingent of heavily armed police.”
It added:
“Both the General Manager Mr. Charles Abah and a security guard were arbitrarily arrested during the raid.”
The organisation said the episode demonstrated what it described as the Nigerian government’s disregard for freedom of expression and media freedom.
“The incident which happened today 11 September 2026 demonstrates President Bola Tinubu government’s utter disregard for freedom of expression and media freedom,” Amnesty said.
Those are serious allegations. They also require scrutiny of the police account, the arrest records, the reason for the station search and the precise status of Yabagi’s case.
The unanswered question: what was the legal order?
The most important unresolved issue is the authority under which officers entered the broadcast premises.
The Nigeria Police Act 2020 provides powers concerning arrest, warrants, notification of the cause of arrest and the rights of suspects. It also sets out circumstances in which an arrest may be made without a warrant.
Where a warrant is issued, Nigerian law requires it to identify the offence or matter involved and the suspect to be arrested. The Police Act also provides rules governing how such warrants are executed and when they must be shown to an arrested person.
That creates several questions for investigators and the public.
Was there a warrant?
If there was, what offence did it specify?
Who issued the instruction?
Was Yabagi’s alleged offence connected to the broadcast itself, its production, publication or another matter?
Why were the station manager and a security guard arrested if the stated target was a journalist?
And were records of the arrests, including the time of detention and the reason communicated to each detainee, properly made?
Until those questions are answered, the phrase “police had instructions” leaves a major accountability gap.
Why the journalist’s video matters
The controversy appears to centre on journalism about a senior political official.
Ibrahim Kabir Masari occupies a politically important position within President Bola Tinubu’s administration and has become increasingly visible in the ruling party’s political operations ahead of the 2027 election. Recent reporting has described his role as influential in the Presidency’s political engagement and campaign machinery.
In August, Masari was also identified as Deputy Director-General, Logistics and Operations, of the APC Presidential Campaign Council for 2027.
That political context makes scrutiny of reporting about him particularly sensitive.
It does not, by itself, make a journalist immune from lawful investigation.
But it does make the standard applied to the journalist especially important.
The central democratic question is whether authorities are investigating a genuine criminal offence supported by evidence, or using police powers in response to reporting that is uncomfortable for a politically powerful public official.
Those are not the same thing.
Nigeria’s constitutional protection
Nigeria’s Constitution expressly protects freedom of expression.
Section 39 provides that every person is entitled to freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. It also protects the ability to operate media platforms, subject to limitations imposed by law.
Nigeria has also ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, whose Article 9 protects the right to receive information and to express and disseminate opinions within the law.
That protection is not absolute.
Journalists can be investigated and prosecuted where there is credible evidence of a genuine criminal offence. Media houses are also not beyond the law.
The problem arises when policing becomes a substitute for transparent legal process.
A troubling pattern
Amnesty’s concern about the Kaduna incident comes against a wider backdrop.
Its latest Nigeria reporting says journalists and other critics of the authorities continued to face arrest, detention and prosecution. In 2025, Amnesty documented several cases involving journalists, social commentators and other critics, including arrests under cybercrime-related provisions.
Human Rights Watch similarly reported continued arrests and prosecutions of Nigerian journalists and social media commentators, including cases involving cyberstalking and defamation allegations.
In February 2025, Amnesty and SERAP also accused the Department of State Services of intimidating AIT and Channels Television over their reporting of the Lagos State House of Assembly crisis, warning that such actions could have a chilling effect on journalism and public debate.
This history matters because media freedom is rarely destroyed in one dramatic act.
It can be weakened incrementally.
A summons here.
An arrest there.
A threat to a broadcaster.
A demand that material be removed.
A criminal complaint against a journalist.
A newsroom that begins to hesitate before publishing.
The result can be self-censorship without any formal ban.
Amnesty made that argument directly in the Kaduna case.
“Attacking JKD Radio/Television is part of a wider pattern of attempts to create climate of fear across newsrooms in Nigeria and to make it harder for journalists to do their job.”
Why the arrest of a manager changes the story
The reported arrest of Charles Abah is particularly significant from a media-business perspective.
A newsroom is not simply a collection of individual journalists. It is an operating business with management, security, technical staff, advertisers, presenters, producers and audiences.
When police enter a media facility and arrest management staff, the consequences can extend beyond the individual detainees.
Broadcast schedules may be disrupted.
Staff may become reluctant to handle politically sensitive stories.
Advertisers may become concerned about operational continuity.
Owners may face increased security and legal costs.
Journalists may begin avoiding investigations that could expose them to personal risk.
For independent media organisations already operating under financial pressure, those effects can be substantial.
The broader Nigerian broadcast sector is commercially important, particularly for Hausa-language and Northern-focused audiences. JKD TV and Hamada Radio have previously been publicly identified as significant broadcast operations, with the company’s chairman, Yaro Yusufu Mamman, describing the network as operating television and radio services across several Nigerian cities.
That makes the reported incident more than a newsroom dispute.
It potentially affects a media business, its employees and its ability to operate.
Kaduna’s political climate adds another layer
The timing is also difficult to ignore.
The reported raid came amid heightened political activity in Kaduna as parties prepare for the 2027 elections.
Just days before the alleged JKD incident, Kaduna police defended their decision to disperse supporters of the African Democratic Congress during a political gathering, saying officers intervened because of an alleged road obstruction and public-order concerns. Party supporters accused security agencies of intimidation.
The two events are not necessarily connected.
But together they illustrate the increasingly sensitive operating environment in which political reporting, public protest and police powers intersect.
That is precisely why transparency matters.
What should happen next?
The immediate priority should be a clear, verifiable account from the police.
The Kaduna State Police Command should identify the alleged offence involving Yabagi, explain whether a warrant existed, state which officers or unit conducted the operation and disclose the legal basis for the arrest of Abah and the security guard.
The police should also clarify whether the three arrests were connected to the same investigation and where those detained were taken.
If Yabagi is wanted for a genuine criminal offence, she should be informed of the allegation and allowed to challenge it through due process.
If the arrests were unlawful, those affected should have access to legal remedies and accountability mechanisms.
Amnesty itself called on authorities to recognise that public officials cannot be shielded from legitimate scrutiny.
“No government official — no matter his status — is above scrutiny and criticism in the interest of the public.”
It further warned:
“Such targeting of independent media is solely aimed at depriving people of the opportunity to receive fair and objective reporting of issues affecting their lives.”
And its starkest conclusion was:
“An attack on the media is an attack on freedom.”
The real test is due process
The Kaduna incident should not be reduced to a contest between Amnesty International and the police.
The real test is documentary.
There should be an arrest record.
There should be a stated offence.
There should be an identifiable legal authority.
There should be a chain of command.
There should be a record of where the detainees were held.
There should be an opportunity for the accused journalist to answer the allegation.
And there should be enough transparency for Nigerians to determine whether this was legitimate law enforcement or an abuse of police power.
Until those facts are made public, the most important questions remain unanswered.
For a country approaching another fiercely contested election, that distinction matters.
A democracy can survive criticism of government.
What it cannot easily survive is a system in which journalists become afraid to ask the questions that powerful people would rather not answer.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let's know your opinion.