Anti-Tinubu Post: Court rejects Sowore’s uncertified exhibits

…. as trial continues July 28

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA — Trial of the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, continued on Wednesday with the Federal High Court in Abuja rejecting a document he sought to tender in defence of the cybercrime charges the Department of State Services (DSS) filed against him.

The security agency is prosecuting him on a two-count charge for calling President Bola Tinubu a “criminal” in a post he shared on social media platforms.

At the resumed proceedings, the politician and activist sought to tender some documents in evidence through his third witness.

In an application made through his team of lawyers led by Mr. Olumide Fusika, SAN, Sowore disclosed that the documents he sought to have admitted in evidence contained a summary of proceedings featuring the testimony of a witness of the DSS codenamed XYZ.

The record of proceedings was accompanied by letters the defendant urged the court to admit in evidence to strengthen his defence.

He moved to tender the exhibits through a lawyer, Wayne Chikezie Elijah, who appeared before the court as a defence witness.

However, counsel to the DSS, Mr. Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, challenged the admissibility of the documents, which he noted were not certified.

The prosecution counsel contended that since the exhibits contained public documents, they ought to be properly certified to meet the admissibility threshold.

He therefore urged the court to reject the documents for the defendant’s failure to comply with provisions of the Evidence Act.

Despite the argument of Sowore’s lawyer that the documents, which he said came from the court’s records, needed no certification, he was overruled by trial Justice Mohammed Umar.

Justice Umar held that the documents came from the custody of a counsel who claimed he had earlier appeared for the defendant in the matter.

“The reason for certification is to be sure the document has not been tampered with. Having been in the custody of the said counsel, how is the court sure that the document has not been tampered with?” Justice Umar queried.

He refused the defendant’s application and marked the documents as rejected.

Earlier in the proceedings, another witness, Mr. Uwen Davis, who identified himself as a Principal Officer, General Services, in the DSS, testified before the court.

The witness told the court that he authored a letter dated September 7, 2025, and delivered it to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of “X Corporation,” requesting that the offending post Sowore made against President Tinubu be deleted.

Davis told the court that part of the reasons adduced in the letter was that Sowore’s post was capable of leading to a breakdown of law and order, considering that President Tinubu’s supporters were becoming infuriated.

Asked to name some of the supporters who were getting furious over the alleged offensive post, the witness said he could not specifically name anyone.

He, however, admitted that he wrote the letter based on instructions from his superior officer.

Justice Umar fixed July 28 for the continuation of the hearing in the case.

Sowore had, on December 2, 2025, pleaded not guilty to the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, filed against him by the DSS.

The charges allege offences under Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

The offending posts, made on August 25, 2025, were in response to President Tinubu’s claim, made in Brazil, that his administration had ended corruption in Nigeria.

Angered by the posts, the DSS demanded that X Inc. (formerly Twitter) and Meta Platforms Inc. ban Sowore’s accounts and remove the posts. The security agency also wrote to Sowore, asking him to delete the posts from all platforms.

Non-compliance with the request led to the charges.

The prosecution claims the defamatory posts were intended to cause a breakdown of law and order and to tarnish the president’s reputation. Exhibits include printouts of the posts and the DSS letters.

X Inc. and Meta were initially co-defendants but were delisted in the amended charge.