Nasarawa Activist Oscar Keana Transferred to Medium Security Prison After DSS Arraignment Over Alleged Claims Against Governor Sule
By Globalvoice Investigations
Abdulkarim Allanana, a Nasarawa based media activist better known as Oscar Keana, has reportedly been transferred from the Lafia Custodial Centre to the Medium Security Custodial Centre in Nasarawa State, days after his arraignment by the Department of State Services (DSS) over alleged false publications concerning Governor Abdullahi Sule.
Allanana, who chairs the Indigenous People of Nasarawa State (IPNAS), was reportedly moved on Tuesday morning following a directive from the Nigerian Correctional Service, according to sources familiar with his detention.
The transfer has added another layer to a case that has already drawn attention to the limits of free expression, the use of criminal proceedings over allegedly defamatory political statements, and the power of public officials to trigger security investigations against critics.
From Activism to Criminal Charges
Allanana was recently arraigned before the Federal High Court in Lafia on a two-count charge bordering on alleged false information.
Following the arraignment, the court remanded him in custody and adjourned proceedings until November 26, 2026, when his bail application is expected to be heard.
The circumstances surrounding his subsequent transfer from the Lafia facility to the Medium Security Custodial Centre have raised questions among individuals monitoring the case.
One source alleged that authorities could still bring additional charges against the activist, potentially extending his period in custody. That claim could not independently be established.
The transfer itself also does not, on its own, establish that additional charges are being prepared.
Governor Sule's Petition Triggered DSS Investigation
The case reportedly began with a petition submitted to the DSS by Governor Sule through Abuja based law firm Legal Logic.
The petition, dated September 20, 2026, accused Allanana of making what the governor described as “grave, malicious, reckless and unsubstantiated” allegations through social media broadcasts.
Among the claims cited was an allegation that Governor Sule had directed his supporters to back former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo during the 2023 presidential primary process, allegedly against the wider interests of the governor's political party.
The petition also reportedly accused Allanana of making claims concerning the alleged liquidation of the African Petroleum (AP) Group of Companies, as well as statements concerning Governor Sule's political support for President Bola Tinubu during the 2023 elections.
According to the petition, the governor considered the allegations false and damaging, arguing that they could expose him and his office to public hatred, ridicule, contempt and disrepute.
Family Allegations Also Cited
The petition reportedly went beyond political allegations.
It also referred to separate online videos in which Allanana allegedly made offensive comments concerning members of the governor's family, including remarks relating to a purported DNA test involving the governor's daughter.
Reports indicate that Allanana subsequently retracted some of the statements attributed to him.
However, the reported retractions did not prevent the DSS from proceeding with the case and eventually bringing him before the Federal High Court.
That development raises an important question: when an individual retracts or corrects allegedly false statements, what role should that retraction play in determining whether criminal prosecution remains necessary?
The Freedom of Expression Question
Allanana's detention has triggered concern among individuals who see the case as part of the broader struggle over freedom of expression and civic space in Nigeria.
Critics of the prosecution argue that public officials, particularly elected politicians, must tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny and criticism because of the nature of their offices.
At the same time, public officials also have legitimate interests in protecting their reputations and challenging statements they believe to be deliberately false or defamatory.
The difficult question is where the line should be drawn between legitimate political criticism, defamatory allegations and criminally punishable false information.
A source who drew attention to Allanana's case urged civil society organisations and advocates of press freedom to monitor the proceedings closely.
“Whatever the allegations, his case deserves attention from those who consistently advocate for freedom of expression, due process and the protection of civic space,” the source said.
What Happens Next?
For now, the allegations against Allanana remain allegations, and his arraignment does not amount to a conviction.
The Federal High Court is expected to consider his bail application on November 26, while the prosecution's case will have to be tested through due process.
But beyond the individual case lies a broader question for Nigeria's democratic space:
At what point does a government official's right to defend his reputation become an instrument for suppressing political criticism and are Nigeria's existing laws and institutions providing the right balance between combating deliberately false information and protecting dissent, journalism and civic activism?
