The prosecution in the cyberbullying trial of Omoyele Sowore, the African Action Congress presidential candidate, told a Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday that the defence was wrong to insist that the Director General of the Department of State Services, DSS, Oluwatosin Ajayi, must come to court in person to testify as a defence witness.
Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the case to October 6, 2026. He will rule then on whether the DSS chief can be compelled to appear personally and testify about actions the Service took.
Prosecution: “An official of the DSS is competent”
Prosecuting counsel Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, said Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, could not insist that only the Director General would satisfy the subpoena issued in his name.
Kehinde cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR (Pt. 498) 347 at 373. In that case the court held that when a subpoena is directed to a named public officer, it would be absurd to insist that only that officer can appear to comply with it.
He reminded the court that the Attorney General of the Federation, who led the prosecution team on July 28, 2026, made the same argument. Kehinde said the parties then agreed that the DSS would nominate an official to represent the Director General. In line with that agreement, he said, a designated DSS official was in court on Friday and ready to testify.
The prosecutor also argued that the Director General had no personal interest in the case because he acted only in his official capacity. He added that it would be impractical for the DSS chief to attend every case involving the Service, since it has matters pending in several divisions of the Federal High Court.
Also Read: Katsina traditional rulers hail DSS, military over captives’ freedom
“This is a case that is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case since March 16, 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defence to argue that, at a point, it agreed that an official of the DSS should come, but now it is insisting on the DG alone,” Kehinde said.
“The decision as to who should attend court is at the discretion of the court, not that of the defence. An official of the DSS is competent to give evidence in place of the DG.”
Defence: Prosecution broke the agreement
Olumide-Fusika argued earlier that the prosecution had walked away from the agreement. He said it failed to produce the designated official on the last adjourned date.
He said the subpoena and hearing notice were issued in the Director General’s name, so Ajayi had to appear in person.
The defence lawyer said the decision to subpoena the DSS chief personally came from the testimony of the second defence witness, DSS official Uwem Davies. According to Olumide-Fusika, Davies said several times that only the Director General could answer certain questions.
Background
The DSS brought the charges under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024. They relate to posts Sowore published on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook in August 2025, in which he called President Bola Tinubu a “criminal” and accused him of misrepresenting the level of corruption in the country. Sowore refused several requests from the DSS to delete the posts. He has pleaded not guilty and stands by what he wrote.
The prosecution closed its case after calling one witness. In May 2026, Justice Umar dismissed Sowore’s no-case submission and ordered him to open his defence. His first witness, lawyer and activist Deji Adeyanju, testified in July.
Davies testified for the defence on July 22, 2026. He said he wrote only the letter dated September 7, 2025, which asked Sowore to remove the posts and was served on him on September 9, 2025. The defence then announced it would call up to 20 witnesses, including Ajayi and presidential aide Bayo Onanuga.
Ajayi did not appear when the subpoena first came up. Court records showed it had been served on the DSS Director of Legal Services. On July 28, the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, appeared in person to lead the government’s team and challenged the subpoena. He argued that the letter in question was written by Davies, not Ajayi, and had already been admitted in evidence. Sowore’s team then agreed that another DSS official could give the evidence.
The trial has been tense throughout. At the August 3 sitting, Kehinde accused the defence of “dilatory tactics,” and Olumide-Fusika called him a “persecutor.” Justice Umar warned both senior advocates that any repeat could lead to a referral to a disciplinary body.
On August 30, several media outlets reported that the DSS had told Kehinde to seek a suspension of the trial until after the 2027 presidential election, so Sowore could campaign without the case hanging over him. Sowore rejected the idea. He demanded that the charges be withdrawn, that the DSS apologise, and that devices seized from him and his associates be returned.
When Olumide-Fusika raised those reports in court on September 28, Kehinde said he knew nothing of them, that he was ready to proceed, and asked the court to foreclose the defence. Justice Umar instead gave the defence another chance to produce its witness and adjourned to Friday.
Crediblenewsng.com
