The Department of State Services (DSS) on Monday re-arraigned activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, before the Federal High Court in Abuja over an alleged anti-President Bola Tinubu social media post, following the Federal Government’s decision to discontinue charges against Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation.
The development came after the prosecution amended the charge, leaving Sowore as the sole defendant in the cybercrime case.
Sowore was initially arraigned on December 2, 2025, in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, alongside Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation, formerly known as Twitter. However, at the resumed hearing before Justice Umar on Monday, the lead prosecutor, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that an amended charge filed on December 5, 2025, was ready to be read.
The prosecution subsequently withdrew the earlier charge and formally applied for the names of Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation to be struck out of the suit. Justice Umar granted the application and removed both companies from the case.
According to the amended charge, Sowore is accused of knowingly or intentionally transmitting a message on or about August 25, 2025, through his verified X handle, @YeleSowore, which the prosecution alleges was false and capable of causing a breakdown of law and order.
The post quoted in the charge read: “This criminal @officialABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is NO MORE corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
The prosecution alleged that the post constituted cyberstalking, contrary to Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
When the amended charge was read in court, Sowore pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution then applied to proceed with trial and sought to call its first witness. This application was opposed by Sowore’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, who argued that the prosecution was not ready for trial.
Abubakar contended that the amended charge was defective because it failed to disclose the identity of the prosecution’s witness or attach witness statements. Citing Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, he argued that the omission violated Sowore’s right to fair hearing and hindered the defence’s ability to prepare adequately.
“The witness sought to be called is unknown to the defence and, indeed, unknown to the court,” Abubakar submitted.
In response, Kehinde described the objection as speculative, insisting that Section 36(6) of the Constitution does not require the prosecution to disclose the identity of a witness before testimony. He added that the defence could request an adjournment to enable effective cross-examination, noting that the prosecution intended to call only one witness, who was already present in court.
After listening to submissions from both parties, Justice Umar ordered the prosecution to furnish the defence with the witness statement and adjourned the case to Thursday, January 22, 2026, for definite hearing.
About The Author
