Testifying in the ongoing trial of Sowore before the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, an intelligence officer in the Cyber Security Department of the DSS, only identified as Mr XYZ, in his witness statement dated January 20, 2026, said he was familiar with the case by virtue of his official duties, which include monitoring cyberspace for activities capable of threatening national security.
A witness for the Department of State Services (DSS) has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that social media posts by activist and publisher, Omoyele Sowore, describing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal” posed a threat to Nigeria’s national security and public order.
Testifying in the ongoing trial of Sowore before the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, an intelligence officer in the Cyber Security Department of the DSS, only identified as Mr XYZ, in his witness statement dated January 20, 2026, said he was familiar with the case by virtue of his official duties, which include monitoring cyberspace for activities capable of threatening national security.
According to the witness, Sowore, using his verified X (formerly Twitter) account @YeleSowore, on August 26, 2025, posted a video clip of President Tinubu during an official state visit to Brazil and accompanied it with a caption that 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 witness told the court that Sowore made a similar post on August 26, 2025, on Facebook, again attaching a video of President Tinubu at a bilateral conference in Brazil and repeating the same statement describing the president as a “criminal.”
He said the posts attracted millions of views and generated widespread public reactions, both for and against Sowore, which the DSS assessed as capable of escalating political tension and threatening national security.
“The Defendant's tweet on X Platform and his post on Facebook, Meta undermine the legitimacy of government, is capable of causing a breakdown of law and order, creating political tension and threatening the Country's national security,” the witness said.
“In addition, they have a disparaging effect on the reputation of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria before the comity of Nations.”
He further testified that following the online reactions, the DSS wrote to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of X Incorporated on September 6, 2025, requesting the removal of Sowore’s post, which the Service described as disparaging to the president and capable of threatening national security.
A similar letter, dated September 7, 2025, was also sent to the Chief Executive Officer of Facebook, Meta Platforms, asking that the post be taken down for the same reasons, the court heard.
The DSS witness added that the Service also sent a classified letter dated September 7, 2025, to Sowore through his lawyer, asking him to remove the posts, retract the statements, and issue a public apology.
According to the witness, the letter stated that Sowore’s comments were false, malicious, and capable of inciting public disorder.
The witness said that rather than complying, Sowore published the classified DSS letter on his X account on September 12, 2025, without retracting his original statements.
The witness told the court that by publishing the classified correspondence and maintaining the posts, Sowore further aggravated the situation.
Sowore is standing trial on charges brought by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, following complaints by the DSS over his social media commentary on President Tinubu. The case was adjourned for continuation of hearing.
Court Ordered Prosecutors To Provide Witness Testimony ‘Even If Witness Is An Evil Spirit’
On Tuesday, Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the cybercrime case filed against the activist and two-time presidential candidate, Sowore, after firmly insisting that the prosecution must provide the defence with the identity and statement of its sole witness even if, in his words, the testimony were to be rendered by an “evil spirit.”
The insistence followed a tense court session in which the prosecution team, led by Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, was compelled by the court to comply with fundamental requirements of criminal procedure after serious defects were identified in its amended charge.
The dispute arose after prosecutors engaged by the DSS amended the charge sheet, quietly dropping references to Facebook and Twitter and leaving only two counts that were fraught with ambiguity.
Tension mounted when the revised charges were read in court and the registrar asked Sowore whether he understood them. Sowore responded that he did not, explaining that the amended charge failed to state who owns or controls the X (formerly Twitter) handle @officialABAT, which is central to the allegations against him.
Justice Umar initially suggested that the handle referred to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, but Sowore disagreed, arguing that he could not be expected to plead to charges built on assumptions or speculation.
He maintained that the account could be operated by someone other than the president and that the charges were therefore unclear.
The judge then invited the prosecution to address the issue. At that point, Sowore’s lead counsel, Marshal Abubakar, Esq., sought permission to briefly consult with his client.
Following the consultation, Sowore entered a plea of not guilty, and the court confirmed that his existing bail conditions would continue.
However, the prosecution’s attempt to immediately open its case was swiftly halted.
Abubakar drew the court’s attention to a fundamental procedural defect, noting that although the prosecution claimed to be ready for trial and said its witness was present in court, the defence had not been served with either the identity of the witness or the witness’s statement.
In response, Justice Umar held that an accused person has a constitutional right to know the identity of his accuser and to be furnished with witness statements in advance of trial, stressing that this obligation applies regardless of the nature of the witness.
Consequently, the court adjourned the matter to Thursday, January 22, 2026. The defence team, however, maintained that additional time would be necessary to properly prepare, citing the disorganised state of the prosecution’s case.
Subsequently, two civil suits filed by Sowore in the same court, one against Facebook and the other against Twitter, were called.
The court adopted processes in the Facebook suit and reserved judgment, while the Twitter case was adjourned for a later hearing after Twitter’s counsel requested additional time.
Notably, counsel for Facebook made a controversial submission, arguing that citizens do not have a guaranteed right to use the platform to express themselves, an assertion that drew criticism and highlighted the company’s contentious stance on free expression and public accountability in Nigeria.