Anti-Tinubu post: DSS re-arraigns Sowore, drops charges against Meta, X

The Department of State Services (DSS) on Monday re-arraigned activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, before an Abuja Federal High Court over an alleged anti-President Bola Tinubu social media post, as the Federal Government formally dropped charges against Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation.

The development followed the prosecution’s decision to amend the charge, leaving Sowore as the sole defendant in the cybercrime case.

Sowore was first arraigned on December 2, 2025, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, alongside Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation, formerly Twitter.

However, at the resumed hearing before Justice Umar on Monday, lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that an amended charge filed on December 5, 2025, was ready to be read, with no objection from the defence.

The prosecution subsequently withdrew the earlier charge and formally applied for the names of the second and third defendants—Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation—to be struck out of the case.

Justice Umar granted the application and struck out both companies from the charge.

According to the amended charge, Sowore is accused of knowingly or intentionally sending a message on or about August 25, 2025, via his verified X handle, @YeleSowore, which the prosecution alleges was false and capable of causing a breakdown of law and order.

The charge quoted Sowore as posting: “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!”

ADVERTISEMENT

The prosecution alleged that the post amounted to 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 to him, Sowore pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution applied to proceed with trial and sought to call its first witness, a move opposed by defence counsel, Marshal Abubakar.

Abubakar argued that the prosecution was not ready for trial, contending that the amended charge was defective for failing to disclose the identity of any prosecution witness or attach witness statements.

Relying on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, the defence counsel said the omission violated Sowore’s right to fair hearing, insisting that the defence could not adequately prepare without knowing the witnesses and evidence to be relied upon.

“The witness sought to be called is unknown to the defence and, indeed, unknown to the court,” Abubakar said.

In response, Kehinde dismissed the objection as speculative, arguing that Section 36(6) of the Constitution does not require the prosecution to disclose the identity of a witness before calling him to testify.

He added that the defence was free to apply for an adjournment to enable cross-examination, noting that the prosecution intended to call only one witness, who was already present in court.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Umar directed the prosecution to provide the defence with the witness statement and adjourned the matter to Thursday, January 22, 2026, for definite hearing.