A landmark judgment delivered by the Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, has reaffirmed the constitutional protection of religious freedom in Nigeria after the court ordered Prophet Tamarauebi Elisha Owan and eight members of the Greatgod Holy Tabernacle to pay a total of ₦205 million in damages for the destruction of a traditional Egbesu shrine in Delta State. The ruling, which has generated widespread legal, religious and public debate across the country, underscores that while Nigerians are free to practice, preach and propagate their religious beliefs, no individual or religious group has the legal authority to destroy another person's place of worship simply because they disagree with its doctrines or practices.
The case, which has attracted significant national attention, arose from the demolition of the Osuopele Benesede Opu-Oru Temple, an Egbesu shrine located in Ojobo community, Delta State. According to court records, the shrine was allegedly destroyed on December 20, 2024, during an incident involving Prophet Tamarauebi Elisha Owan and members of his church.
Reports indicate that the prophet allegedly entered the shrine with the intention of demonstrating the superiority of his Christian faith by destroying what he reportedly believed to be false gods. However, rather than ending as a religious demonstration, the incident quickly evolved into a legal dispute after worshippers of the traditional religion approached the court, arguing that their constitutional rights had been grossly violated.
After reviewing the facts presented before it, the Federal High Court ruled in favour of the applicants, holding that the destruction of the shrine constituted a clear violation of the constitutional rights of the worshippers to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as guaranteed under Section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The court further held that the actions of the respondents were inconsistent with Section 10 of the Constitution, which expressly provides that no government in Nigeria shall adopt any religion as a state religion. Although the matter involved private individuals rather than government officials, the court emphasized that constitutional guarantees protecting religious freedom extend equally to all citizens regardless of their faith.
Delivering its judgment on June 29, 2026, the court declared that the destruction of the traditional shrine, as well as the harassment allegedly suffered by the worshippers, amounted to unconstitutional discrimination and an unlawful interference with their right to practice their religion freely.
Consequently, the court issued several far-reaching orders aimed at restoring the rights of the affected worshippers and preventing similar incidents in the future.
Among the most significant directives was an order compelling Prophet Owan and the other respondents to rebuild the destroyed Osuopele Benesede Opu-Oru Temple. The court held that merely paying monetary compensation would not sufficiently remedy the damage caused by the destruction of a place regarded by adherents as sacred.
In addition to rebuilding the shrine, the court awarded ₦100 million as general damages to compensate the worshippers for the infringement of their constitutional rights and the emotional, cultural and religious losses arising from the demolition.
The court also imposed another ₦100 million as exemplary damages, explaining that such damages serve as punishment for conduct considered particularly wrongful and as a deterrent against similar acts in the future.
Furthermore, the respondents were ordered to pay ₦5 million as the cost of the legal proceedings, bringing the total financial liability to ₦205 million.
The judgment did not stop at financial compensation. The court equally directed Prophet Owan and the other respondents to publish public apologies in two national daily newspapers, acknowledging the violation of the worshippers' rights and expressing remorse over the incident.
In another significant aspect of the judgment, the court restrained the respondents from further harassing or intimidating members of the Egbesu religious community. It also ordered them to remain at least ten kilometres away from both the shrine and its worshippers to prevent future confrontations.
The judgment has generated considerable discussion among legal practitioners, religious leaders and constitutional scholars, many of whom describe it as an important reaffirmation of Nigeria's secular constitutional framework.
Nigeria is home to hundreds of ethnic groups and diverse religious traditions, including Christianity, Islam and various indigenous belief systems. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to adopt, change, manifest and propagate any religion of their choice without fear of discrimination or persecution.
Legal analysts note that while religious evangelism and missionary activities are protected under the Constitution, those freedoms do not extend to acts of violence, destruction of property or interference with another person's lawful exercise of religious rights.
According to constitutional experts, the judgment reinforces the long-established legal principle that freedom of religion includes not only the right to embrace one's own beliefs but also the obligation to respect the beliefs of others, regardless of personal disagreement.
DDM News gathered that the decision has elicited mixed reactions across various religious and civil society groups. While many legal observers praised the judgment as a victory for constitutionalism and the rule of law, some Christian commentators argued that believers should continue to preach their faith peacefully without engaging in actions capable of provoking conflict with adherents of other religions.
Traditional religious practitioners have equally welcomed the ruling, describing it as a significant affirmation that indigenous religions deserve the same constitutional protection as other recognized faiths in Nigeria.
Human rights advocates also believe the judgment sends a strong message that attacks on religious institutions, regardless of the faith involved, will attract legal consequences. They argue that equal protection under the law is essential for preserving peaceful coexistence in Nigeria's multicultural society.
The case has also reignited conversations about religious tolerance, interfaith dialogue and peaceful coexistence among Nigerians. Community leaders have repeatedly emphasized that religious diversity should be viewed as a source of national strength rather than division.
Observers note that although disagreements over religious beliefs are inevitable in plural societies, such disagreements should be resolved through dialogue, lawful preaching and peaceful persuasion rather than intimidation, destruction of sacred sites or acts capable of inciting communal conflict.
Constitutional lawyers further explain that the court's reliance on Sections 10 and 38 of the Constitution reflects Nigeria's commitment to maintaining neutrality in religious matters while ensuring that every citizen enjoys equal protection before the law regardless of religious affiliation.
Beyond the immediate parties involved, the judgment is expected to serve as an important legal precedent in future cases involving alleged violations of religious freedom and attacks on places of worship.
For many Nigerians, the ruling is a reminder that constitutional rights carry corresponding responsibilities. Every individual enjoys the liberty to practice and promote his or her faith, but such liberty must always be exercised within the limits imposed by law and with respect for the rights of others.
As reactions continue to emerge from across the country, legal experts believe the judgment reinforces the principle that Nigeria's democracy is built on the rule of law, equality and mutual respect among citizens of different religious backgrounds. DDM News understands that the decision is likely to remain one of the most significant judicial pronouncements on religious freedom in recent years, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights, promoting peaceful coexistence and ensuring that no individual's freedom of worship is undermined by the beliefs or actions of another.