Court rejects Sowore’s documents in cyberstalking trial, warns against live streaming hearing

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday refused to admit documents tendered by human rights activist and SaharaReporters publisher, Omoyele Sowore, in his cybercrime trial for calling President Bola Tinubu “a criminal.”

The trial judge, Mohammed Umar, rejected two caches of documents brought by the defence team in separate rulings.

In the first ruling, the judge declined an oral application by Mr Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, seeking to tender printouts of media publications as evidence.

The documents included reports on the SSS dismissing 115 officials for misconduct, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charging five former governors with corruption, the EFCC dismissing 27 officials over fraud and misconduct, and the EFCC arresting former staff members of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited over an alleged N7.2 billion fraud.

Mr Umar, in his ruling, agreed with the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, that the appropriate time for the defendant to tender the documents was during the defence stage of the trial.

He held that the first prosecution witness, Cyril Nosike of the State Security Service (SSS), had said that he knew nothing about the publications.

“You cannot tender a document through a witness who said he does not know anything about it. The document is marked rejected,” the judge ruled.

In a similar ruling, the court, for the same reason, rejected another set of documents containing publications which Mr Abubakar said showed that President Tinubu, in 2011, called then President Goodluck Jonathan a drunkard and a sinking fisherman, and described former President Olusegun Obasanjo as expired meat.

The judge also expressed concern over a complaint by the prosecution lawyer, Mr Kehinde, that a member of the defence team had live streamed previous proceedings in the case. The lawyer urged the court to order an investigation to identify the person responsible.

However, Mr Abubakar denied that any member of the defence team was involved and suggested that the act could have been carried out by the SSS or individuals linked to the presidency.

He urged the court to caution against a repeat rather than order an investigation.
The judge said such a conduct could amount to contempt of court.

He added that identifying the person responsible would not be difficult and that he could direct security agencies to investigate the matter. He described the act as serious and said the court would probe the leaked video.

Mr Sowore is facing two cybercrime charges over posts he made on Facebook and X in August 2025, calling Mr Tinubu “a criminal.” The prosecution alleged that the posts were intended to cause a breakdown of law and order and to damage the president’s reputation.

Mr Nosike, the SSS first prosecution witness, began his testimony on Thursday, 22 January. He told the court how he came across Mr Sowore’s social media posts on 26 August 2025. He also tendered several exhibits, including copies of the posts and a video recording of President Tinubu in Brazil, which formed the basis of the activist’s reaction.

During cross examination on 27 January, the court admitted a video clip tendered by the defence showing Reno Omokri, Nigeria’s newly appointed ambassador awaiting deployment, referring to President Tinubu as a “drug lord.” After the day’s long cross-examination, the judge adjourned further proceedings until today (Wednesday).

Wednesday’s cross examination

The cross-examination of the first prosecution witness continued on Wednesday.

Fielding questions from defence lawyer Mr Abubakar, the witness said that at the time Mr Sowore made the post, President Tinubu’s official X handle was @officialABAT. He rejected the suggestion by Mr Abubakar that the handle was @PBAT.

The witness said he did not tender any court judgement to show that corruption had ended in Nigeria. When asked whether there was corruption in the country, he said he was not a politician and could not comment, adding that the defence was seeking his opinion.

Mr Nosike disputed the claim that the SSS dismissed 115 officials for corruption, saying they were removed after internal investigations and not specifically for corruption. He also denied knowledge that, in 2025, the EFCC charged five former governors with corruption, arrested former NNPC staff members over alleged fraud, or dismissed 27 officers for fraud and misconduct.

He said he was not aware of Nigeria’s ranking of 140 out of 180 countries on the Transparency International’s corruption perception index.

He also said he did not know that President Tinubu was a major opposition figure in 2011, or that President Tinubu had, in 2011, described former President Jonathan as corrupt, shameless, a drunkard, and a sinking fisherman.

He also denied knowing that Mr Tinubu called former President Obasanjo expired meat, adding that he would be surprised if shown documents supporting such claims.

Continuing, Mr Nosike said he knew Femi Fani-Kayode, now an ambassador-designate, but could not recall that he was a vocal critic of the president before his nomination.

He also denied knowledge of claims that Mr Fani-Kayode accused President Tinubu of knowing about the death of Funso Williams, a former governorship candidate in Lagos State.

He said he was not aware that the SSS screened Mr Fani-Kayode as an ambassador-designate, noting that it was not part of his duties. He also said he could not recall that Mr Williams was murdered in Lagos while Mr Tinubu was governor of the state.

The witness confirmed knowing Mr Omokri and his appointment as an ambassador-designate by the current administration. But said he was not aware of any social media posts or videos in which Mr Omokri alleged that President Tinubu knew about Mr Williams’ murder or was involved in drug trafficking.

Mr Nosike the prosecuting witness, also claimed he was not aware that Mr Omokri staged a protest against President Tinubu in the United Kingdom, where he allegedly claimed that the president was a “drug lord” and knew about the murder of Funso Williams

After one hour and 40 minutes of cross-examination, the judge, Mr Umar, asked Mr Abubakar when he intended to conclude his cross-examination of the witness, noting that the questioning had spanned two days.

Mr Abubakar asked for one more day, saying he still had important questions and documents to put before the witness.

Mr Kehinde responded that the defence had earlier requested one additional hour but had exceeded that time and was still not done.

Mr Umar adjourned the case until 5 March for continuation of the cross-examination.