The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed January 22 for the start of the trial of Sahara Reporters publisher Omoyele Sowore over alleged false claims against President Bola Tinubu. Justice Mohammed Umar set the date after Sowore pleaded not guilty to a two count amended charge filed by the Department of State Services.
In the amended charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025 and filed on December 5, Sowore is listed as the only defendant. X Inc, formerly Twitter, and Meta, owner of Facebook, which were earlier joined as second and third defendants, were removed from the case at the request of the prosecution.
The DSS alleges that on or about August 25 2025, Sowore used his X handle @YeleSowore to post a message accusing Tinubu of falsely claiming in Brazil that there was no more corruption under his government. Prosecutors say he knew the message was false and that it was capable of causing a breakdown of law and order and posing a threat to life.
He is charged with cyberstalking under Section 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024. The offence carries penalties under the same section of the law.
After the charge was read, Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, asked the court to let his client continue to enjoy the bail earlier granted, and Justice Umar agreed. The DSS counsel told the court that a prosecution witness was already present and that they were ready to proceed with the hearing.
Abubakar opposed moving forward immediately, arguing that although the proof of evidence listed witnesses, none was named and no witness statements were attached. He said this breached Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 379(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 because the defence had not been given enough material to prepare.
The defence lawyer insisted that the names and depositions of prosecution witnesses must be frontloaded. He maintained that the witnesses were unknown to the defence and that withholding their details denied Sowore adequate facilities for his defence.
Responding, DSS counsel Kehinde disagreed and said the reliance on those legal provisions was misplaced. He argued that the law does not require the prosecution to disclose witness names before they appear in court and described the objection as an attempt to delay the trial.
Kehinde said the prosecution had already filed the charge, exhibits and a case summary and that the proper focus should be a speedy determination of the matter. He added that the defence could still ask for an adjournment after a witness has given evidence if they needed more time to prepare cross examination.
After hearing both sides, Justice Umar adjourned the case to January 22 for definite hearing.