The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday shifted the planned arraignment of former presidential candidate and activist Omoyele Sowore, alongside two co-defendants, to October 27, 2025. Sowore was scheduled to appear in court on allegations of cybercrime, particularly for social media posts said to target President Bola Tinubu. However, the proceedings could not go forward as scheduled due to issues surrounding proper service of the charges on the defendants.
The Department of State Services (DSS), acting on behalf of the Federal Government, filed a five-count charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025 against Sowore. According to the prosecution, Sowore allegedly used his official X account, @YeleSowore, to post a message accusing President Tinubu of making false claims about corruption in Nigeria.
The contentious post reportedly read: “This criminal @officialABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!” Prosecutors argued that the message was intended to incite public disorder and contravened Section 24(2)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act 2024.
The charges extended beyond his X account. Count two accused Sowore of posting the same statement on his official Facebook page a day later, allegedly to provoke unrest among Nigerians with differing opinions about the president. In subsequent counts, the DSS charged Sowore with defamation under Section 375 of the Criminal Code, citing both his X and Facebook accounts as platforms for spreading allegedly damaging material.
The final count alleged that he deliberately published falsehoods about the president with the intent to cause fear, disturbance, and reputational harm, an act said to violate Section 59 of the Criminal Code Act.
Interestingly, Sowore was not the only defendant listed in the case. X (formerly Twitter) was named as the second defendant, while Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, appeared as the third defendant. This marked an unusual turn in Nigerian legal proceedings, as it extended liability beyond the individual user to the platforms hosting the alleged publications. While X did not have legal representation in court on Tuesday, Meta was represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Professor Tayo Oyetibo.
The day’s hearing stalled almost immediately. When the matter was called, Sowore’s counsel, Abubakar Marshall, raised an objection, insisting that his client had not been properly served with the charges. He further argued that since the case involved multiple defendants, and X had also not been served, the arraignment could not lawfully proceed.
The prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation (DPPF), Mohammed Babadoko Abubakar, countered this claim, asserting that Sowore had indeed been served.
Justice Mohammed Garba, presiding over the matter, examined the case file and sided with the defence, confirming that service had not been properly effected. Following this revelation, the DPPF applied to serve Sowore in open court. The judge granted the request, and Sowore accepted the documents on the spot, fulfilling the legal requirement of service.
Once served, Sowore’s legal team invoked his right under the law to have at least three days to review the charges and prepare his defence. Although the prosecution opposed the request, Justice Garba upheld it, stressing the importance of fairness and due process. The judge then formally adjourned the case to October 27 for arraignment. In his words, “The Court will adjourn to the 27th day of October for the arraignment of the defendants.”
The proceedings highlighted the contentious nature of the case, pitting issues of free speech and political criticism against cybercrime and defamation laws. Sowore, known for his activism and outspoken criticism of successive Nigerian governments, has faced multiple legal battles over the years, many of which have sparked debates about civic rights and state power. This latest case again raises questions about the boundaries of political expression in Nigeria’s evolving digital space.
The involvement of global tech giants Meta and X further complicates the matter, drawing attention to the accountability of social media platforms in Nigeria’s judicial system. While Meta’s decision to secure legal representation suggests it is taking the matter seriously, X’s absence from the courtroom hints at possible jurisdictional challenges that the court may soon confront. Analysts say the case could set a precedent for how international digital platforms are treated under Nigerian law.