The decision by the Minister of Aviation, Festus Keyamo SAN, to publicly release CCTV footage purportedly showing an incident involving Mr Peter Obi at a major international airport raises questions that extend far beyond partisan politics. The central issue is not merely what allegedly occurred at the airport. Rather, it is whether the disclosure of sensitive surveillance material by a serving government minister was consistent with the principles of legality, due process, institutional accountability and the rule of law.
The first question is straightforward: do car parking offences constitute criminal offences, civil infractions, or merely administrative violations? The distinction is fundamental, as each category attracts a different legal process. If the alleged conduct amounted to a criminal offence, the proper course would ordinarily have been to refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for investigation and, where the evidence warranted it, prosecution before a court of competent jurisdiction. If, however, the matter was administrative or civil in nature, on what legal basis was sensitive airport surveillance footage released into the public domain by a serving government minister?
These are not technical legalities; they are constitutional questions that go to the heart of democratic governance.
Equally important is the question of legal authority. Does the Minister of Aviation possess statutory powers to authorise, access or publicly disseminate airport CCTV footage relating to a politically exposed individual in order to rebut public criticism or advance a political narrative? If such authority exists, from which statute, regulation or established protocol is it derived? If it does not, who authorised the disclosure? Was the appropriate chain of custody observed? Were the relevant airport authorities, law enforcement agencies or security institutions consulted before the footage was released?
These questions are, arguably, more significant than the incident itself.
Airport CCTV systems are not ordinary recording devices. They form part of a nation’s critical aviation security infrastructure, established to safeguard passengers, protect sensitive facilities and assist authorised agencies in the investigation of incidents where necessary. For that reason, surveillance footage is generally regarded as sensitive official information. Across mature democracies, including the United Kingdom, the disclosure of such material is governed by strict legal and institutional safeguards designed to protect privacy, preserve the integrity of investigations and prevent the misuse of official information. The guiding principle is straightforward: access to sensitive information does not, of itself, confer the authority to publish it.
It is for this reason that Mr Keyamo arguably has more questions to answer than Mr Obi.
The focus should no longer rest solely upon Mr Obi’s alleged conduct. It should also examine whether a public official entrusted with sensitive state-held information exercised that responsibility lawfully, proportionately and in accordance with established institutional procedures. Public office carries fiduciary obligations. It is not a licence to deploy official information selectively in pursuit of political advantage.
There is an equally important constitutional question. Has a minister’s verified X account become an alternative courtroom?
Ministers are members of the Executive; they are neither judges nor prosecutors. Nor is social media a substitute for the judicial process. In every constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, allegations are investigated by competent authorities, tested through established legal procedures and determined by independent courts. They are not adjudicated in the court of public opinion through the selective publication of evidence.
The disclosure also warrants careful scrutiny from the perspectives of data protection, privacy and institutional governance. Was there a lawful basis for publishing the footage? Did the disclosure comply with applicable data protection and aviation security obligations? Was it necessary, proportionate and justified by an identifiable public interest? Were the airport authorities, security agencies or other competent institutions involved in approving the release? If no criminal proceedings had been initiated, what compelling public interest justified placing surveillance footage of an identifiable individual into the public domain?
These are legitimate questions that deserve transparent and credible answers.
Whether judicial authorisation was legally required before publication will depend upon the applicable statutory framework and the circumstances of the disclosure. Nevertheless, even where a court order is not strictly required, public officials remain under a legal and ethical obligation to identify a clear lawful basis for releasing sensitive surveillance material. The absence of judicial authorisation as a legal prerequisite does not extinguish the duties of legality, necessity, proportionality and procedural fairness.
The United Kingdom offers a useful point of comparison. Public authorities operating CCTV systems are expected to comply with robust legal standards governing surveillance, privacy and data protection. Disclosure of recorded images is generally confined to clearly defined lawful purposes, supported by documented decision-making and institutional accountability. Ministers do not ordinarily release surveillance footage involving private individuals simply to prevail in political debate. Public confidence in government depends upon the careful and impartial stewardship of official information.
The wider constitutional implications should concern every Nigerian, irrespective of political affiliation.
If serving ministers are able to release sensitive surveillance footage relating to political opponents without transparent institutional oversight, what safeguards remain against similar disclosures involving journalists, civil society organisations, public officials or ordinary citizens? Once state-held information becomes an instrument of political contest rather than evidence governed by law, the distinction between accountable government and arbitrary power begins to erode.
This controversy is therefore about far more than Mr Peter Obi or Mr Festus Keyamo. It concerns the standards that ought to govern the exercise of public power in a constitutional democracy. The legitimacy of government rests not only upon electoral mandate but also upon fidelity to the rule of law, respect for institutional safeguards and restraint in the exercise of official authority.
The rule of law requires more than transparency; it requires that every public office holder exercises power only within the limits prescribed by law. That principle should apply equally to ministers, opposition politicians and ordinary citizens alike. It remains the defining characteristic of every mature democracy and the standard to which Nigeria should hold all who exercise public authority. @iyahiyahperspectives
Dr Iyah Iyah, National Security and Policing Scholar and President, Iyah & Iyah Consulting is writing from the FCT.
