Tag: Sowore

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, fixed Jan. 22 for commencement of trial of Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, over alleged false claim against President Bola Tinubu.

Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after Sowore was arraigned on two-count amended charge filed against him by the Department of State Services (DSS) and pleaded not guilty to the counts.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports, in the amended charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025 and filed on Dec. 5, Sowore is named as sole defendant.

Although Sowore, X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp were named in the earlier charge as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively, in the amended charge, the names of 2nd and 3rd defendants were dropped.

In count one of the amended charge, the DSS alleged that Sowore, on or about Aug. 25, 2025, did knowingly send a message by means of a computer system or network, through his official “X” (formerly Twitter) handle page, @YeleSowore.

In the message, Sowore was alleged to have posted the following tweet: “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 message, which he knew to be false, was said to be posted for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order in Nigeria, posing a threat to life, or causing such message to be sent.

He is accused to have committed an offence of cyberstalking contrary to Section 24(1) (b) and 24(2) (a), (b), and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024 and punishable under the same section.

The prosecution lawyer applied that the names of the 2nd and 3rd defendants be removed and Justice Umar struck out “X” and Facebook from the charge.

Kehinde, therefore, pleaded that the two counts be read to Sowore.

Counsel to Sowore, Marshal Abubakar, did not oppose Kehinde ‘s application that the charge be read to his client for him to take his plea.

After the counts were read to Sowore, he pleaded not guilty and Abubakar prayed the court to allow Sowore continued to enjoyed the earlier bail granted to him and the court granted it.

The DSS lawyer then informed the court that the prosecution witness was in court to testify in the case and that they were ready to proceed

But Abubakar told the court that they were not ready to go on with the case.

The lawyer submitted that in the proof of evidence attached to the charge, names of witnesses were listed but no single name was mentioned in the case.

Besides, Abubakar, who said that no single testimony of the witnesses were attached, argued that this violated Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution.

He further submitted that he needed the adequate time and facility to prepare their defence.

“The depositions of the witnesses and list of witnesses must be frontloaded and they have failed to do this.

“The witnesses are unknown to us and unknown to law.

“Every material needed for the defence of the defendant must be provided for his defence but they have failed to do so my lord,” he added, citing two previous Supreme Court cases and Section 379(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice System (ACJA), 2015 to back his argument.

But Kehinde disagreed with Abubakar.

The senior lawyer submitted that the provision of ACJA as quoted by Abubakar had no bearing in the instant.

Besides, he said reliance on this provision of the law is grossly misconceived and an insult to the court.

“The provision of Section 36(6) that he relied on does not provide that we must provide a name to our witnesses before bringing them to court,” he said.

Kehinde said the defence was at liberty, after the witness must have given the evidence, to ask for a stand down or an adjournment to cross examine their witness.

He said that Abubakar’s submission was a ploy to delay the trial, urging the court to discountenance the argument.

“The concern of parties should be to have the

matter determined expeditiously,” he added.

“I submit that the argument of my learner brother is not relevant in this case.

“We have front-loaded the witnesses and we have also front-loaded the charge and exhibits which emanated from the defendants.

“We have also exhibited the case summary,” the senior lawyer said.

After taking all the arguments, Justice Umar adjourned until Jan..22 for definite hearingq

 

By

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, threatened to revoke a bail granted Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, if he makes comments considered detrimental to national peace and security.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling on Sowore’s bail application after he was arraigned by the Department of State Services (DSS), restrained him from further making such statements.

Justice Umar held that since there was evidence that Sowore was a presidential candidate in the country before and having also earlier been granted bail by the court, with his international passport still being held by the court, he was entitled to be granted bail on self-recognition.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the DSS, accused Sowore of making a false claim against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” on his X and Facebook accounts.

The security agency, in the five counts, sued Sowore, the 2019 and 2023 presidential candidate of African Action Congress (AAC), as 1st defendant and joined X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp as 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Earlier when the matter was called for Sowore to take his plea, his lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, challenged the competency of the charge.

Abubakar argued that a preliminary objection had been served on the counsel for prosecution, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN.

He, however, informed the court that the preliminary objections was served on the DSS lawyer few minutes before commencement of the proceedings.

He argued that his client cannot take a plea on a charge that was incompetent.

Responding, Kehinde vehemently objected to Abubakar ‘s submission.

The senior lawyer, who argued that the application was not ripe to be taken, said the business of the day was for Sowore’s arraignment.

He said the preliminary objections filed was part of the mischief of the 1st defendant (Sowore)’s lawyer to delay proceedings in the matter.

He reminded the court that so many adjournments had been granted at the instance of the 1st defendant in the past.

Kehinde, who cited Section 396(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, to back his argument, said no application ought to be heard until Sowore’s arraignment.

Lawyers who appeared for X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp (2nd and 3rd defendants), including Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, did not opposed the application for the matter to to proceed.

In a short ruling, Justice Umar aligned with the argument of the DSS lawyer and ordered that the arraignment should proceed.

Sowore, however, pleaded not guilty to the five counts.

Following the not guilty plea, Kehinde applied for a trial date but Abubakar said a bail application had been filed on Sowore’s behalf.

The lawyer, while arguing the bail motion dated Aug. 18, urged the court to admit Sowore to bail on self-recognizance or most liberal terms.

He said the 1st defendant was willing and ready to stand his trial and that he would not jump bail.

“He is a law-abiding citizen. He is a two-time presidential candidate.

“Just three days ago, the applicant won an election as chairman of a major political party in Nigeria, AAC.

“And that he is ready to prove his innocent before your lordship,” he said.

Abubakar, who urged the court to grant their application, undertook to always ensure that Sowore is in court for his trial.

He said the 1st defendant’s international passport was already with the deputy chief registrar of the court, hence, he cannot jump bail.

Responding, the DSS lawyer said I’m opposition to the bail application, a counter affidavit of 40 paragraphs was filed.

Kehinde, though a bail is at the discretion of the court, he prayed the court to refused Sowore’s bail plea.

He submitted that one fundamental consideration in the exercise of the discretionary power of the court in granting bail is contained in Section 162 of ACJA, 2015.

“That the applicant (Sowore) has a duty to convince my lord that where this application is granted, he will not commit another similar offence,” he said.

The senior lawyer argued that looking at Sowore’s trajectory, the instant bail cannot be granted, the applicant, having flouted a previous order of the court.

“I urge my lord to be weary in exercising this discretion.

“And if your lordship is inclined to exercising the discretion, the conditions should be very stringent,” he prayed.

Ogunwumiju and Christabel Ndokwelu who appeared for X and Facebook did not oppose the application.

Justice Umar, who admitted Sowore to bail on self-recognition, barred him from making statements considered to be a threat to the country’s national unity and peace.

The judge, who warned that his bail would be revoked if the 1st defendant indulged in such act, adjourned the matter until Jan. 19, 2026 for commencement of trial.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the arraignment of Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, until Oct. 27.

Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the matter on Tuesday to afford Sowore adequate facility to prepare for his defence.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in 2019 and 2023, is facing a five-count charge.

The Department of State Services (DSS), on Federal Government’s behalf, had sued Sowore, X Incorp. (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp. as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

The charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, was dated Sept. 16.

Sowore was alleged to have made a false claim against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” on his X and Facebook accounts.

When the matter was called on Tuesday, Sowore was in court, as well as counsel for Meta.

However, there was no representation for X.

The DSS counsel, Mohammed Abubakar, applied that the charge be read to the defendants so they could take their plea.

But Sowore’s lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, opposed the application.

The lawyer said the court bailiff was yet to effect the service of the charge on his client.

Besides, he argued that in criminal trial where three defendants are listed, the appearance of the 2nd defendant (X) is sacrosanct.

He said ‘X’ must be represented in court to ensure that all the defendants had been properly served.

From the court record, the judge confirmed that ‘X’ and Meta had been served electronically via their email addresses.

The DSS lawyer then applied that the charge be served on Sowore in the open and Justice Umar granted the request after it was not opposed by Abubakar and Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, who appeared for Meta.

Abubakar, however, sought an adjournment to afford the 1st defendant adequate time and opportunity to defend himself in line with Section 282(6) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

Justice Umar adjourned the matter until Oct. 27 for arraignment.

NAN reports that the charge was filed few days after an earlier request by the DSS for the alleged defamatory message posted by Sowore to be pulled down on his Facebook and X handles.

In the charge, Sowore is accused of contravening the provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.

Count one of the charge alleged that Sowore, on or about Aug. 25, did use his official X handle page, @Yele Sowore, to send out a message/tweet.

The message is said to be, “THIS CRIMINAL @ OFFICIAL PBAT ACTUALLY WENT TO BRAZIL TO STATE THAT THERE IS NO MORE CORRUPTION UNDER HIS REGIME IN NIGERIA. WHAT AUDACITY TO LIE SHAMELESSLY!,”

The message, which he knew to be false, was posted “for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order in the country, especially among individuals, who hold divergent views on the personality of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (GCFR).”

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024, among other counts.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, ordered six banks to furnish the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police with details of account documents and all transactions, including inflows and outflows, linked to Omoyele Sowore from January 2024 till date.

Justice Emeka Nwite gave the order after I-G ‘s lawyer, Wisdom Madaki, moved an ex-parte motion to the effect.

The I-G, in the motion, had told the court that Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, is being investigated on allegations bordering on terrorism financing, money laundering and fraudulent activities.

Justice Nwite, in a ruling, held that the application was meritorious.

“I have listened to the submission of the counsel to the applicant and I have also gone through the affidavit evidence.

“I am of the view and so hold that the application is meritorious.

“The prayer is hereby granted as prayed,” the judge ruled.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the I-G, in the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1757/2025, had sued Sowore and Sahara Reporters Media Foundation as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The applicant joined the United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, Guarantee Trust Bank (GTB) Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, Opay Digital Services Ltd, Moniepoint and Kuda Microfinance Bank Ltd as 3rd to 8th defendants respectively.

The I-G sought “an order directing the following banks; UBA Plc, GTB plc, ZENITH Bank Plc, Opay Digital Services Limited, Moniepoint and Kuda Microfinance Bank Limited to furnished the applicant through the office of the Inspector General of Police Monitoring Unit account opening package/mandate card, certified true copy of the statement of account reflecting transfers with account numbers of both inflows and outflows from January, 2024 till date.”

The I-G, in the five-ground of argument, said Sowore “is being investigated for terrorism financing, money laundering and fraudulent activities.

“That the complainant had commenced investigation in the activities of the 1st respondent.

“That the accounts seeking to obtain the statement of accounts are the accounts which the 1st respondent is using for terrorism financing and money laundering.”

The applicant said there was need for the court to grant the relief sought for the purpose of investigation and that if the order was not granted, it would jeopardise the police investigation.

Also in the affidavit attached to the motion, Bassey Ibrahim, a police officer in the Legal Section, Force CID, alleged that his office received intelligent report that Sowore “is using the accounts for terrorism financing, money laundering and receives financial support from foreign partner for terrorism.”

Ibrahim averred that there was a need for the police to secure the order of the court to obtain the statements of the accounts to enable the office carry out investigation into the alleged fraudulent activities of the suspects.

“That the respondents will not be prejudiced or indemnified by the grant of this application.

“That I swear to this affidavit in good faith believing the content to be true and correct in accordance with the provision of the Oath Act, 2024,” he deposed.

NAN reports that no fewer than 26 bank accounts linked to Sowore, including Sahara Reporters Media Foundation and African Action Congress (AAC)’s accounts, among others, are being investigated.