A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore, against the Department of State Services, its Director General, Oluwatosin Adeola Ajayi, and Meta Platforms, Incorporated, formerly Facebook.
Justice Mohammed Umar, in a judgment on Thursday, resolved the three issues identified for determination against Sowore, declined to grant any of the reliefs sought, and dismissed the suit for being without merit. In addition, the judge awarded N1.5 million against the politician.
Sowore had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1887/2025, claimed that the decision by Meta Incorporated, acting on the instruction of the DSS and its DG, to take down a post he made describing President Bola Tinubu as a criminal and deactivated his Facebook account, contravened his fundamental human rights.
He had on 26 August 2025, published a post on his Facebook account, in which he referred to the President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”
In the post, Sowore said: “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
In his claim, Sowore argued that the decision by Meta Incorporated, allegedly acting on the directive of the DSS and its DG, to take down his post and deactivate his account, without hearing from him, contravened his rights to fair hearing, to freedom of expression and to associate.
Also Read: Judge blows hot, asks Sowore’s lawyer to kneel down
Justice Umar, in resolving the first issue, held that Sowore wrongly made allegation of contravention of his right to fair hearing against the three respondents – DSS, its DG and Meta Platforms Incorporated.
The judge held that the claims made by Sowore against the respondents did not relate to fair hearing which the law, under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure envisaged.
He added: “The law is that, to seek to enforce fundamental right to fair hearing provided under Chapter four of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the alleged violation must be in respect of proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law.
“There would be no case of infringement of the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution when the decision alleged to have violated one’s constitutional right to fair hearing is that of a non-judicial body.
“In the instant case. the alleged violation to right to fair hearing of the applicant, Sowore, was made against the respondents, which were not contemplated under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as explained by judicial authorities.
“In the light of the above, it is my holding here that fair hearing is not applicable to the instant case.”
In resolving the second issue, Justice Umar held that the complaint made by the DSS and its DG about Sowore’s August 26, 2025 Facebook post and the decision by Meta Incorporated to take the post down and deactivate his account did not amount to violations of his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association, guaranteed under Section 39 and 40 of the Constitution.
The judge further held that the rights to freedom of expression and association are, like all other constitutionally guaranteed rights, not absolute.
He said: “It is to be noted that the protection of rights and reputation of others is one of the instances where right to freedom of expression can be curtailed.
“Expression can be restricted to protect the rights, reputation, or privacy of others. This is to say, where an expression is meant to disparage individual or group of individual, the law will not allow it.
“This is to say, the law will frown at any expression that will cast aspersion on others in the name of expressing constitutional right to freedom of expression.
“This is the rationale behind the derogation of the fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution as amended,” he said.
The judge also held that “the right to freedom expression is guaranteed under our laws, provided that citizens must be cautious with the reputation of others while they express and disseminate their opinions.”
The judge added that the DSS and its DG, in complaining to Meta Incorporated that Sowore’s post violated Nigeria’s laws but did not violate his rights but only took the right step to use Facebook reporting channels to report the post of the applicant.
He said: “This court agreed with the submission of the first and second respondents that whatever action Facebook has taken is entirely done under its own policies and independent judgement.
“Therefore, this court did not see how the freedom of expression and or association of applicant under the circumstances presented is infringed.”
In resolving the third issue, which is
whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought, the judge held that the reliefs sought by the applicant are declaratory in nature, which the applicant is under a duty to succeed by the strength of his case.
The judge said: “A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant has failed to convince this court that his rights as guaranteed under Sections 36, 1, 39 and 41 have been or are likely to be threatened by the respondents.
“This court is of the firm view that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and | so hold. On the whole, I find no merit in this application and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Umar said.
Following applications for cost made by lawyer to the DSS and its DG, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, and counsel to Meta Incorporated, Victoria Bassey, Justice Umar awarded a cost of N1.5million against Sowore, at N500,000 to each of the three respondents.
