The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an application filed by human rights activist and Sahara Reporters publisher, Omoyele Sowore, seeking to compel the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi, to appear as a defence witness in his ongoing cybercrime trial.
Justice Mohammed Umar, who delivered the ruling on Monday, held that the personal appearance of the DSS chief was unnecessary, as another qualified official of the security agency could provide the evidence required by the defence.
The decision dealt a setback to Sowore’s effort to secure the direct testimony of the nation’s domestic intelligence chief in a criminal case arising from controversial social media statements he made about President Bola Tinubu in August 2025.
The judge ruled that the application would not serve the interest of justice, explaining that the evidence sought concerned the official activities of the DSS rather than matters personally involving its Director-General.
According to the court, any designated officer with sufficient knowledge of the agency’s operations and relevant records could competently testify on its behalf.
Sowore, a former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), is standing trial over allegations bordering on cybercrime following publications on his social media platforms.
The prosecution alleged that the activist published posts on X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook in which he described President Tinubu as a “criminal” and accused him of making false claims about the level of corruption in the country.
The publications, reportedly made on August 26, 2025, subsequently became the subject of an investigation by the DSS, culminating in the criminal proceedings against the activist.
Through his counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, Sowore had approached the court seeking an order compelling Ajayi to appear personally and testify in his defence.
However, counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, opposed the application, arguing that the proposed testimony related entirely to the official responsibilities of the security agency.
Kehinde maintained that it would be inappropriate to insist on the personal attendance of the Director-General when another competent DSS officer could address the issues raised by the defence.
He argued that the matter was institutional rather than personal and that the agency’s position could be adequately presented through an authorised representative.
In his ruling, Justice Umar agreed with the prosecution’s argument, holding that the testimony expected from the DSS chief was not connected to his private actions or personal knowledge but to official engagements of the agency.
The judge consequently ruled that another officer familiar with the relevant circumstances could appear before the court to give evidence.
Following the decision, the defence called its third witness, Michael Jego, an investigating officer with the DSS, who provided details of the security agency’s investigation into Sowore’s social media publications.
Jego told the court that he was a member of the investigative team that identified and examined the controversial posts on X and Facebook.
According to him, the publications attracted the attention of the DSS because investigators considered them capable of posing a significant threat to national security.
He explained that the team monitored reactions to the statements as part of its assessment of their potential implications.
The witness further disclosed that the agency subsequently advised Sowore to withdraw the publications.
Jego maintained that the posts made on August 26, 2025, had the potential to undermine national security, although the court has yet to determine whether the statements constituted any criminal offence.
The testimony introduced further details about the considerations that informed the DSS investigation and the security concerns raised by the agency.
The case has continued to attract attention because of its implications for freedom of expression, political criticism and the application of Nigeria’s cybercrime legislation.
At the centre of the proceedings is the question of whether Sowore’s statements crossed the boundaries of lawful expression or constituted conduct punishable under the country’s cybercrime laws.
The matter also raises broader legal questions about the extent to which national security considerations can justify criminal proceedings arising from criticism of elected public officials.
Under the Nigerian Constitution, citizens enjoy the right to freedom of expression, subject to lawful restrictions. The prosecution must, however, establish the elements of the alleged offences before a conviction can be secured.
Monday’s ruling did not determine Sowore’s guilt or innocence. It addressed only his request to compel the DSS Director-General to appear personally before the court.
With that application dismissed, the trial proceeded through the testimony of an investigating officer, leaving the substantive allegations against the activist for judicial determination.
As proceedings continue, the court’s eventual decision will be closely watched for its implications for the interpretation of cybercrime offences, the limits of political expression and the relationship between national security enforcement and constitutionally protected civil liberties.
