Listen to the article
Nigeria’s Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled the trial of Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, for January 22 following allegations that he made false statements about President Bola Tinubu. Justice Mohammed Umar set the date after Sowore was arraigned on a two-count amended charge filed by the Department of State Services (DSS). Sowore entered a not guilty plea during Monday’s proceedings.
The amended charge, filed on December 5 and marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, now names Sowore as the sole defendant. In the original charge, social media platforms X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp were listed as co-defendants, but they have since been removed from the amended filing.
According to DSS allegations, Sowore posted a message on his official X handle, @YeleSowore, on or around August 25, 2025. The post reportedly stated: “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 prosecution contends that Sowore knew the statement was false and published it with intent to provoke a breakdown of law and order in Nigeria, 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, which addresses cyberstalking offenses. During the court session, DSS lawyer Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, requested that the amended charge be read to the defendant, to which Sowore’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, did not object.
After the charges were read and Sowore entered his not guilty plea, Abubakar requested that his client’s previously granted bail conditions remain in effect. The court approved this request, allowing Sowore to remain free while awaiting trial.
The prosecution informed the court that a witness was present and prepared to testify immediately. However, Sowore’s defense team objected to proceeding, arguing that the proof of evidence provided by the prosecution lacked critical information, including the names and depositions of witnesses. Abubakar contended that this omission violated Section 36(6) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution and impeded their ability to prepare an adequate defense.
To strengthen his argument, Abubakar cited several Supreme Court rulings and referenced Section 379(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015, which outlines the requirements for fair criminal proceedings in Nigeria.
The prosecution countered these objections, with Kehinde arguing that the ACJA provision cited by the defense was not applicable in this context. He suggested that the defense could request a pause or adjournment during proceedings to properly cross-examine witnesses after they testify. Kehinde characterized the defense’s objection as a deliberate 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.
Sowore, a prominent activist and journalist, has twice run for president in Nigeria’s elections – in 2019 and 2023 – under the banner of the African Action Congress (AAC). This case represents the latest in a series of legal challenges he has faced in recent years related to his outspoken criticism of the Nigerian government.
The case has drawn attention from press freedom advocates who have expressed concern over the use of cybercrime legislation against journalists and government critics in Nigeria. The outcome could have significant implications for freedom of expression and the boundaries of political criticism in Nigeria’s digital space.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
5 Comments
While false claims can be damaging, I hope the trial is conducted impartially and that Sowore’s right to free speech is respected. Defamation cases can be complex, and the facts should be carefully examined before reaching any conclusions.
As an observer, I hope this trial is handled with impartiality and care. It’s a complex issue where the rights of free speech and the need to combat misinformation must be carefully balanced. I look forward to following the developments.
Given the sensitive political context, I’m glad the court has set a clear timeline for this trial. Transparency and due process are crucial in cases involving public figures and allegations of misinformation.
This is an interesting case about alleged false claims against a public figure. I’m curious to see how the trial unfolds and whether the evidence supports the charges. It’s important to maintain the integrity of public discourse, but also to ensure fair treatment of all parties.
The removal of the social media platforms as co-defendants raises some questions. I wonder if this will affect the prosecution’s case or Sowore’s defense strategy. It will be interesting to see how the court handles the evolving legal landscape around online speech.