Listen to the article
Nigerian Court Sets January Trial Date for Sowore’s Alleged False Statements About President Tinubu
The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled January 22, 2026, for the trial of Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, who faces cyberstalking charges over alleged false statements made about President Bola Tinubu. Justice Mohammed Umar set the trial date on Monday after Sowore was arraigned on a two-count amended charge filed by the Department of State Services (DSS).
During the court proceedings, Sowore pleaded not guilty to the charges. The DSS filed the amended charge on December 5, marking it as FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025. Notably, the original charge had included X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp as co-defendants, but these companies were removed in the updated filing, leaving Sowore as the sole defendant.
According to the prosecution, Sowore allegedly posted a message on his official X handle, @YeleSowore, on or about August 25, 2025, stating: “This criminal@officlalABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!” The DSS contends that Sowore knew the statement was false and posted it with the intent to provoke a breakdown of law and order, create threats to life, or disseminate harmful information.
The charges against Sowore fall under Section 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024. This case marks a significant application of Nigeria’s updated cybercrime legislation, which has faced criticism from press freedom advocates who argue it can be used to stifle legitimate criticism of government officials.
During the court session, DSS lawyer Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, requested that the amended charge be read to Sowore. Marshal Abubakar, Sowore’s counsel, did not object to this request. After Sowore entered his not guilty plea, Abubakar requested that his client’s previously granted bail conditions remain in effect, which the court approved.
The prosecution informed the court that a witness was present and ready to testify. However, Abubakar contended that the defense was unprepared to proceed because the proof of evidence did not include the names or depositions of witnesses. He argued that this omission violated Section 36(6) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution and prevented the preparation of an adequate defense.
To strengthen his position, Abubakar cited relevant Supreme Court rulings and Section 379(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015. The prosecution countered this argument, with Kehinde asserting that the ACJA provision cited by the defense was not applicable in this case. He suggested that the defense could request a pause or adjournment to cross-examine witnesses after they testify if needed.
Kehinde characterized the objection as a delay tactic and urged the court to proceed with the trial. After considering both arguments, Justice Umar adjourned the case until January 22 for the substantive hearing.
This case has drawn significant attention in Nigeria’s media and political circles. Sowore, who contested for president in both the 2019 and 2023 elections under the African Action Congress (AAC), has been a prominent critic of successive Nigerian governments. His media platform, Sahara Reporters, is known for its investigative journalism and often critical coverage of Nigerian politics.
The case raises important questions about the boundaries between legitimate criticism of public officials and cybercrime in Nigeria’s evolving digital landscape. Press freedom organizations have expressed concern that cybercrime laws could potentially be used to target journalists and political opponents, while government supporters argue that false information spread online can pose genuine threats to public order and national security.
As the January trial date approaches, the case is likely to remain under close scrutiny from legal experts, media organizations, and civil society groups concerned with freedom of expression in Nigeria.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
3 Comments
While I don’t condone the spread of misinformation, I hope the trial will be fair and transparent. The public has a legitimate interest in scrutinizing the actions of their elected leaders, even if the criticisms are sometimes harsh.
This case against Sowore seems to raise some important questions around free speech and the limits of criticism of public figures. It will be interesting to see how the courts handle the balance between protecting reputations and upholding the right to free expression.
I’m curious to learn more about the specific claims Sowore made and the evidence the authorities have to support the charges of false statements. Defamation cases can be tricky, especially involving high-profile political figures.