In a dramatic twist to the ongoing political drama at the Lagos State House of Assembly, the Department of State Services (DSS) has threatened to take legal action against two major television networks, AIT and Channels TV, for their coverage of the chaotic events surrounding the Assembly on February 17, 2025.
The security agency, in separate letters addressed to both networks, accused them of broadcasting misleading reports that wrongly depicted the DSS as having “invaded” the Assembly, obstructing lawmakers and preventing the Speaker from entering the chamber. The agency’s lawyers demanded that the networks retract their reports within seven days, or face both civil and criminal suits for defamation.
The Alleged Invasion
The controversy erupted following an incident at the Lagos State House of Assembly on February 17, when a standoff between lawmakers and security operatives—believed to be from the DSS—raised serious questions about the independence of the legislature. According to eyewitnesses and video footage from the scene, security personnel attempted to block lawmakers from entering the Assembly complex, which led to a tense exchange lasting for approximately 20 minutes.
Reports from AIT and Channels TV quickly spread across the nation, with claims that DSS officials had stormed the Assembly in an attempt to prevent lawmakers, including Speaker Mojisola Meranda, from performing their constitutional duties. The media coverage described a forceful takeover that further deepened suspicions about possible political maneuvering behind the scenes.
However, the DSS vehemently denied these accusations, stating that the reports were not only false but also dangerous to its reputation.
DSS Defends Its Actions
In a strongly worded letter to both television stations, signed by Ayodeji Adedipe, the DSS legal counsel, the agency explained that it had been invited to the Assembly by the Acting Clerk of the House, ATB Ottun, on February 14, in anticipation of a potential security breach. According to the DSS, the invitation was prompted by “credible intelligence” indicating that former Speaker Obasa, who had been impeached, was planning to forcibly resume his post on February 18. The DSS was tasked with ensuring the security of the Assembly complex during this critical period, and to prevent any lawlessness or disruptions.
“The DSS was invited by the Acting Clerk of the Assembly to support the security team in place and ensure a peaceful legislative environment,” read the letter. “Contrary to the misleading reports, our officials were not attempting to block access to the Assembly. Instead, they were there to maintain law and order based on a legitimate request from the Assembly.”
Legislators React to DSS Actions
While the DSS maintains that it was acting within the scope of its duties, the Lagos State Assembly quickly issued its own statement, acknowledging that the agency had been invited for security support. However, lawmakers were quick to point out that the security operatives had exceeded their mandate.
In a statement from Stephen Ogundipe, Chairman of the House Committee on Information and Strategy, the Assembly clarified that the request made to the DSS was strictly for support at the gate, preventing unauthorized individuals from entering the Assembly grounds. The Assembly did not authorize the DSS to block access to the offices of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, or the Acting Clerk.
“The situation that occurred on Monday raises serious concerns about interference in legislative affairs. The sanctity of the Lagos State House of Assembly was undermined when DSS operatives obstructed the work of lawmakers,” Ogundipe said. “Our duty as lawmakers was hindered by unnecessary interference from security personnel, which could have escalated into a full-blown crisis.”
Tensions Escalate
The drama reached its peak when a standoff ensued on the morning of February 17. Footage circulating online captured the intense moment when DSS officers attempted to enter the chamber through the rear entrance, only to be met with resistance from lawmakers and Assembly workers. Tensions flared as lawmakers accused the security operatives of “invading” the Assembly, disrupting the work of the legislature.
A source within the Assembly, speaking anonymously, described the standoff as a clear violation of the principles of democratic governance. “This was an affront to the independence of the legislature,” the source stated. “It was not just an inconvenience; it was an active attempt to stop us from doing our work. That is something no lawmaker can accept.”
The incident has sparked outrage among many political analysts and civil society groups, with several questioning the role of the DSS in political affairs. Critics argue that such heavy-handed tactics could signal an erosion of democratic processes, particularly when the security agencies intervene in what should be the purely independent functions of the legislature.
The Role of the Media
The media, however, remains a focal point of contention. The DSS’s letters to AIT and Channels TV underscore the growing tension between the government’s security apparatus and media outlets in the country. The media’s portrayal of the event—citing unnamed sources and mischaracterizing the DSS’s role—has only added fuel to the fire.
Lawyer and media analyst, Chijioke Okoro, commented on the matter: “The relationship between the government, security agencies, and the media in Nigeria has always been a delicate one. In this case, the DSS is using its power to silence critical reporting, which raises serious questions about press freedom. If media outlets are forced to retract stories under threat of lawsuits, it undermines the public’s right to know what is happening in their own government.”
Despite the legal threat from the DSS, AIT and Channels TV have yet to release an official response, though sources within both networks say they are preparing a statement addressing the matter.
What Lies Ahead?
As the deadline looms for the retraction, the next few days could see a showdown between the DSS and the media. If the television stations refuse to retract their stories, the country could be faced with the unprecedented spectacle of a civil and criminal suit being filed against two of its most prominent news outlets.
Political analysts suggest that this confrontation could have wider ramifications, signaling a shift in how security agencies engage with the media, and how much power they are willing to exert over public opinion. As the legal battle looms, the events of February 17 continue to cast a shadow over the already volatile political landscape in Lagos State.
For now, the public is left grappling with the question: Was the DSS acting in the interest of public safety, or was this another example of political interference in the operations of a democratically elected body? Only time will tell if this legal battle will offer clarity—or further entrench the divisions within the Nigerian political system.
