Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal
Human-rights activist and SaharaReporters publisher Omoyele Sowore has withdrawn his request to compel the Director-General of the Department of State Services, Oluwatosin Ajayi, to testify in his ongoing alleged cybercrime and criminal-defamation trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Sowore informed the court on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, that the evidence he intended to obtain from the DSS director-general could be presented through another official of the security agency.
The decision followed an objection raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who appeared for the Federal Government and asked the court to set aside the subpoena issued to Ajayi.
Fagbemi argued that the DSS chief did not write or sign the document over which the defence wanted to question him. He also maintained that the relevant letter had already been admitted in evidence during the proceedings.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal does not amount to an abandonment of the activist’s defence. It means only that Sowore will no longer insist that Ajayi personally appear before the court to produce or explain the evidence being sought.
Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the case until August 3, 2026, for the continuation of the defence.
AGF challenges subpoena issued to DSS chief
The courtroom disagreement centred on a letter reportedly sent to Sowore directing him to remove a Facebook post in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a criminal.
The Federal Government contends that the publication violated provisions of Nigeria’s cybercrime legislation. Sowore has pleaded not guilty and is defending the charges.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Fagbemi argued that summoning Ajayi would serve no useful evidential purpose because the director-general was neither the author nor the signatory of the letter.
The Attorney-General also told the court that the document had already been tendered and admitted twice.
He further argued that Uwem Davies, identified during earlier proceedings as the author of the letter, had testified for the defence on July 22.
On that basis, Fagbemi urged the court to cancel the order compelling the DSS director-general to appear and to direct Sowore to proceed with the remaining part of his defence.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal followed the defence team’s eventual acknowledgement that another DSS official could provide the required evidence.
This distinction is important. The defence did not tell the court that the document had become irrelevant. It said the evidence could be obtained without requiring the personal appearance of the head of the security agency.
Defence initially objects to AGF’s intervention
Sowore’s counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, initially objected to the Attorney-General’s intervention in the proceedings.
Olumide-Fusika told the court that another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Akinlolu Kehinde, was already listed as counsel for the Federal Government.
The defence lawyer acknowledged the Attorney-General’s constitutional authority to appear in a federal criminal proceeding but argued that proper notice should have been given before he intervened and sought the cancellation of the subpoena.
His objection therefore concerned procedure and notice rather than a denial of the Attorney-General’s general prosecutorial authority.
The defence maintained that it should not be confronted without notice by a new application capable of changing the direction of the proceedings.
After the arguments, however, Sowore informed the court that he would no longer insist on Ajayi’s appearance because another officer of the DSS could produce the evidence.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal consequently prevented the court from having to determine whether the director-general’s personal attendance remained necessary.
It also allowed the defence to continue without a further dispute over the identity of the appropriate DSS witness.
Court confirms service of subpoena
Before the request was withdrawn, the court examined whether the subpoena had been properly served.
The court registrar informed Justice Umar that the process had been delivered to the Director of Legal Services of the DSS.
The Federal Government nevertheless maintained that Ajayi was personally unaware of the service.
This disagreement raised a procedural question about whether service on the agency’s legal department amounted to effective notice to its director-general.
The court did not need to deliver a final ruling on that issue after the defence withdrew its insistence that Ajayi must testify.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal therefore brought an immediate end to that particular contest without resolving every argument raised by both sides.
Service is an important part of court procedure because a person should not ordinarily be penalised for disobeying an order that was not properly brought to his attention.
At the same time, public institutions usually receive court documents through designated legal officers who are responsible for forwarding them to the appropriate officials.
The facts surrounding service could have become a major issue had the defence continued to insist on Ajayi’s appearance.
Why Sowore wanted the DSS DG in court
Sowore’s lawyers had earlier sought permission to summon Ajayi after a defence witness was reportedly unable to answer some questions concerning the disputed correspondence.
At the July 22 proceedings, Olumide-Fusika told the court that the defence intended to apply for subpoenas requiring both the DSS director-general and presidential adviser Bayo Onanuga to testify.
The defence had also attempted to secure Onanuga’s appearance, but court bailiffs were reportedly unable to serve him at the time.
Justice Umar permitted the defence to take steps to summon witnesses it considered relevant to its case.
The request concerning Ajayi was tied to questions about the DSS letter demanding the removal of the social-media post at the centre of the prosecution.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal should therefore be understood as a change in the proposed method of proving evidence, not necessarily a change in the defence’s broader argument.
Sowore’s team appears to believe that evidence about the letter, its origin, its official status and the circumstances in which it was issued remains relevant to the trial.
The defence must now identify and produce the other DSS official capable of giving that evidence.
Disputed letter already before the court
The Attorney-General’s principal argument was that the document had already become part of the court’s record.
If the letter has already been properly admitted, the next question is what additional evidence the defence seeks to obtain through oral testimony.
A witness may be called to confirm authorship, explain how a document was prepared, identify the authority under which it was issued or answer questions about its contents.
The prosecution’s position is that Ajayi cannot perform that role effectively because he neither wrote nor signed the correspondence.
The defence initially appeared to consider his testimony important because he heads the agency that issued the directive.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal suggests that the defence accepted a practical alternative without necessarily agreeing with all the Attorney-General’s submissions.
The court will still have to determine the weight to attach to the letter and any testimony relating to it.
Admitting a document into evidence does not automatically prove every assertion contained in it. Courts generally consider its relevance, authenticity, origin and connection to the disputed facts.
Earlier document rejected for lack of certification
At the July 22 hearing, the Federal High Court rejected an attempt by Sowore’s defence to tender an uncertified court document.
The defence sought to use the document while questioning Uwem Davies, but the prosecution objected on the ground that it was not properly certified.
Justice Umar upheld the objection.
That development demonstrates the evidential difficulties that can arise when parties seek to rely on official records without satisfying required procedural conditions.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal may help the defence avoid another prolonged argument over how the agency’s evidence should be introduced.
Calling the correct official could provide a clearer route for identifying documents and explaining the circumstances surrounding them.
However, the defence must still comply with the applicable rules on certification, admissibility and witness competence.
The judge will determine whether each item of evidence satisfies legal requirements and what importance it should carry when the case is decided.
Sowore faces amended two-count charge
Sowore is standing trial on an amended two-count charge connected to a social-media publication made on August 25, 2025.
The prosecution alleges that he used online platforms to publish a statement describing President Tinubu in criminal terms.
The Federal Government maintains that the post amounted to an offence under the Cybercrimes Act.
Sowore has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution must therefore establish every element of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt before the court can convict him.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal does not alter that burden.
It is not the responsibility of Sowore to prove his innocence. His lawyers may challenge the prosecution’s evidence, call defence witnesses and present documents supporting his case.
The judge must decide the matter from the evidence and the applicable law rather than political opinions about Sowore, the DSS or President Tinubu.
Until a final judgment is delivered, media reports should continue to describe the allegations as unproven.
https://ogelenews.ng/sowore-dss-subpoena-withdrawal
Criminal-defamation description needs caution
The case has widely been described as a criminal-defamation or cyberstalking trial.
Journalists must use those labels carefully because the precise offences are determined by the wording of the amended charge and the statutory provisions cited by the prosecution.
Defamation can also arise as a civil claim, where a claimant seeks damages or another remedy for injury to reputation.
In Sowore’s case, the Federal Government is prosecuting alleged criminal offences arising from an online publication.
That makes the proceedings fundamentally different from an ordinary civil lawsuit between two private individuals.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal occurred within a criminal prosecution in which the defendant’s liberty and legal rights are directly at stake.
Accuracy requires Ogele News to state that Sowore is being tried over alleged offences and has not been convicted.
The disputed description of President Tinubu should also be attributed as the wording allegedly used in the post rather than repeated as an established statement of fact.
Subpoena withdrawal is not admission of guilt
Political supporters and opponents may attempt to portray the withdrawal as a major defeat for Sowore.
That conclusion would be misleading.
Lawyers frequently modify witness lists, withdraw applications or rely on alternative evidence as a trial develops.
A decision not to compel one particular witness may be strategic, procedural or based on the availability of another witness capable of proving the same facts.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal does not establish that the prosecution’s case is correct.
It does not prove that the disputed post amounted to a criminal offence.
It also does not prevent Sowore from challenging the DSS letter or calling another agency official.
Similarly, the defence’s earlier decision to summon Ajayi did not mean that the court was bound to accept every argument Sowore intended to make through the witness.
The value of the evidence will become clear only after the defence concludes its case and both sides make their final submissions.
Questions remain over Onanuga subpoena
Sowore’s lawyers had also indicated an intention to compel Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, to testify.
Reports from the July 22 proceedings said court officials had been unable to serve Onanuga with the subpoena already sought by the defence.
Tuesday’s reported proceedings focused principally on the DSS director-general.
The available account did not establish that Sowore had also withdrawn the attempt to summon Onanuga.
Ogele News should therefore avoid suggesting that every proposed defence subpoena has been abandoned.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal concerns Ajayi specifically.
The defence may still pursue Onanuga’s testimony, abandon that effort separately or rely on another witness, depending on subsequent court directions.
The relevance of Onanuga’s proposed testimony has not yet been fully established in open court reporting.
Any report on that issue should be updated when the Federal High Court addresses it directly.
Case raises free-expression debate
Sowore’s prosecution has attracted wider debate about freedom of expression, presidential criticism and the use of cybercrime legislation.
Supporters of the activist argue that public officials should tolerate severe criticism and answer political speech through public debate rather than criminal prosecution.
The government’s case, however, is that the disputed publication crossed the line protected by lawful expression and entered conduct prohibited by statute.
The court must determine that question from the wording of the charge, the evidence and the relevant law.
Nigeria’s 2024 amendment to the Cybercrimes Act remains part of the legislative framework governing online conduct. The law should nevertheless be interpreted consistently with constitutional protections and other binding legal standards.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal does not resolve the underlying conflict between reputation, public order and free political expression.
That central legal issue remains before Justice Umar.
A democratic society must protect robust criticism while also applying valid laws fairly. The challenge for courts is to distinguish protected political speech from conduct that meets every legal element of a criminal offence.
AGF’s appearance underlines case’s importance
The personal appearance of the Attorney-General of the Federation underlined the significance the government attaches to the proceedings.
Fagbemi’s intervention was directed at preventing the DSS director-general from being compelled to attend when, in the government’s view, he could not provide the particular evidence being sought.
The defence did not dispute that the Attorney-General possesses broad authority in federal criminal matters.
Its complaint was that proper notice should have preceded his intervention.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal allowed the case to move forward without a ruling on the procedural disagreement.
Nevertheless, future proceedings should be managed in a way that gives both sides adequate opportunity to prepare for applications capable of affecting their cases.
Fair notice is part of orderly litigation, particularly in criminal trials where the consequences for the defendant can be serious.
The prosecution is entitled to challenge irrelevant or unnecessary witnesses. The defence is equally entitled to know the case it must answer and to call admissible evidence supporting its position.
Defence continues on August 3
Justice Umar adjourned the trial until August 3 for Sowore to continue presenting his defence.
The adjournment gives his lawyers an opportunity to decide which DSS official will replace Ajayi and what evidence that witness will be asked to provide.
The defence may also address the outstanding effort to summon Onanuga and any other documents or witnesses it considers necessary.
The prosecution will retain the right to object where it believes evidence is irrelevant, inadmissible or improperly presented.
The court must rule independently on each dispute.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal has narrowed one procedural disagreement, but it has not brought the trial close to an automatic conclusion.
After the defence closes its case, the parties may make final written or oral submissions before the judge reserves judgment.
The court will then determine whether the Federal Government proved the amended charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Trial must remain focused on evidence
Sowore is a prominent political activist, former presidential candidate and publisher whose disputes with Nigerian security agencies have attracted national attention.
Those circumstances make the case politically sensitive, but they must not replace evidence.
The prosecution should prove its allegations through admissible testimony and documents.
The defence should be permitted to challenge that evidence and present its own case without intimidation or unnecessary delay.
The Sowore DSS subpoena withdrawal should therefore be viewed as a procedural development rather than a verdict on freedom of expression or criminal responsibility.
Ajayi will no longer be compelled to testify if the court accepts the defence’s withdrawal, but another DSS official may still be called.
The letter at the centre of the disagreement remains relevant to the defence’s presentation, and the court must determine its proper evidential value.
For now, Sowore remains on trial, his plea of not guilty remains unchanged and the Federal Government retains the burden of proving its allegations.
The proceedings will resume on August 3, when the defence is expected to continue presenting its witnesses and evidence.
https://www.thecable.ng/sowore-seeks-to-compel-dss-dg-onanuga-to-testify-in-cybercrime-trial
