DSS demand to remove Sowore’s tweet: The Knotty issues

By Evans Ufeli Esq

The DSS may request the removal of a tweet and seek deactivation of an account, but an administrative demand alone does not automatically make the post unlawful or impose a binding global takedown obligation on X.

Whether Sowore should remove the post turns on its substance: robust political criticism is strongly protected; content that constitutes provable falsehoods, criminal defamation, direct threats, or imminent incitement to violence carries legal risk and may justify removal as risk mitigation.

X is not automatically culpable for hosting the tweet absent a clear Nigerian legal obligation (a statutory takedown requirement or a valid Nigerian court order), although the company may face regulatory pressure or practical consequences if it refuses to comply with properly-issued orders in Nigeria.

Section 39 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and international law (ICCPR) protect free speech, with heightened protection for political commentary and criticism of public officials. Restrictions must be “prescribed by law” and be necessary and proportionate to legitimate aims (public order, national security, reputation).

ALSO READ: DSS asks Meta to delete Sowore’s Facebook account

Nigerian law contains mechanisms for civil defamation and criminal offenses that can be applied to publications. Separately, statutes addressing cyber offenses and national security can be invoked where speech amounts to credible threats, direct incitement to violence, or the dissemination of information that creates an immediate, substantial risk to security. Mere insults or harsh criticism of the President generally do not meet the high threshold for national-security intervention.

The DSS is an intelligence/security agency that may investigate and request action. However, administrative letters typically do not substitute for the judicial process. To compel removal or deactivation lawfully, the DSS would normally need either statutory authority that clearly confers takedown powers or a court order obtained through Nigeria’s judicial process. Absent that, its letter is a demand, not an automatic legal order.

Liability depends on whether Nigerian law imposes an obligation and whether the proper process is followed. Platforms often comply with lawful domestic orders; otherwise, they may treat DSS requests as non-binding and require formal legal process. X’s obligations in the U.S. differ (First Amendment constraints), but extraterritorial compliance can be driven by local law, commercial considerations, or the risk of local enforcement action.

Sowore should preserve evidence (screenshots, metadata) and obtain Nigerian legal counsel immediately. If the tweet is political opinion or rhetorical criticism, he has a strong defensive position and should not remove it solely because of an administrative demand. If it contains demonstrably false factual allegations, explicit threats, or direct incitement to violence, removal or correction is prudent to reduce legal exposure.

X should request the DSS to identify the specific legal basis and produce any court order before taking down content while preserving the relevant account data and considering local legal exposure and corporate policy.

If DSS proceeds without a lawful basis, Sowore can seek judicial review or other remedies; if lawful processes are invoked, compliance or challenge should be assessed within the rules of Nigerian law.

The DSS can ask, but lawful compulsion requires a legal basis and due process. Whether removal is necessary depends on the tweet’s content and the legal risks thereof.

Sahara Reporters