Anti-Tinubu post: Court rejects DSS request for Sowore’s arrest

A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected the Department of State Services’ (DSS) request for a bench warrant to arrest Omoyele Sowore, activist and publisher of Sahara reporters.

Sowore faces five charges of criminal defamation related to posts allegedly targeting President Bola Tinubu.

Sowore is being prosecuted alongside Meta (Facebook) Inc. and X Corp. (formerly Twitter) over posts he made on his verified social media accounts, which are accused of defaming President Tinubu.

The DSS claims that Sowore made false statements that harmed the President’s reputation, including calling him “a criminal” on his Facebook and X platforms.

The posts were made during Tinubu’s recent visit to Brazil, where he stated that his administration had eradicated corruption in Nigeria.

Sowore’s post read: “This criminal @officialPBAT actually went to Brazil to say that there’s no corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”

According to the DSS, Sowore knew the post was false and published it with the intent to stir unrest, particularly among those with differing views of the President, Bola Tinubu.

The DSS also claims the post violated the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024.

During the hearing, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), DSS lawyer urged Justice Mohammed Umar to issue a bench warrant for Sowore’s arrest, citing his absence from court and lack of legal representation.

Kehinde argued that Sowore had been properly served with both the charge and the hearing notice.

Kehinde referred to Sowore’s absence as an insult to the court, insisting that an arrest order be issued regardless of his location. He also criticized activist Deji Adeyanju’s request for an adjournment on Sowore’s behalf, calling it an attempt to undermine the court.

Read also: Police defends transfer of Sowore to Kuje prison after bail

Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), representing Meta (Facebook) Inc., supported the prosecution, accusing Sowore of deliberately evading the court and dismissing the adjournment request as a diversionary tactic.

However, Justice Umar rejected the bench warrant, noting that X Corp. had not yet received the formal charge sheet, despite receiving the hearing notice. X Corp.

Christabel Ndiokwelo, lawyer confirmed that her client had only been served with the notice but not the official charge.

Justice Umar directed that all defendants be properly served with the necessary legal documents and adjourned the case until December 2, 2025, for the arraignment.