The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, fixed Jan. 22 for commencement of trial of Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, over alleged false claim against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after Sowore was arraigned on two-count amended charge filed against him by the Department of State Services (DSS) and pleaded not guilty to the counts.
In the amended charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025 and filed on Dec. 5, Sowore is named as sole defendant.
Although Sowore, X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp were named in the earlier charge as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively, in the amended charge, the names of 2nd and 3rd defendants were dropped.
In count one of the amended charge, the DSS alleged that Sowore, on or about Aug. 25, 2025, did knowingly send a message by means of a computer system or network, through his official “X” (formerly Twitter) handle page, @YeleSowore.
In the message, Sowore was alleged to have posted the following tweet: “This criminal@officlalABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption under his regime in Nigeria.
“What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
The message, which he knew to be false, was said to be posted for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order in Nigeria, posing a threat to life, or causing such message to be sent.
He is accused to have committed an offence of cyberstalking contrary to Section 24(1) (b) and 24(2) (a), (b), and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024 and punishable under the same section.
The prosecution lawyer applied that the names of the 2nd and 3rd defendants be removed and Justice Umar struck out “X” and Facebook from the charge.
Kehinde, therefore, pleaded that the two counts be read to Sowore.
Counsel to Sowore, Marshal Abubakar, did not oppose Kehinde ‘s application that the charge be read to his client for him to take his plea.
After the counts were read to Sowore, he pleaded not guilty and Abubakar prayed the court to allow Sowore continued to enjoyed the earlier bail granted to him and the court granted it.
The DSS lawyer then informed the court that the prosecution witness was in court to testify in the case and that they were ready to proceed
But Abubakar told the court that they were not ready to go on with the case.
The lawyer submitted that in the proof of evidence attached to the charge, names of witnesses were listed but no single name was mentioned in the case.
Besides, Abubakar, who said that no single testimony of the witnesses were attached, argued that this violated Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution.
He further submitted that he needed the adequate time and facility to prepare their defence.
“The depositions of the witnesses and list of witnesses must be frontloaded and they have failed to do this.
“The witnesses are unknown to us and unknown to law.
“Every material needed for the defence of the defendant must be provided for his defence but they have failed to do so my lord,” he added, citing two previous Supreme Court cases and Section 379(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice System (ACJA), 2015 to back his argument.
But Kehinde disagreed with Abubakar.
The senior lawyer submitted that the provision of ACJA as quoted by Abubakar had no bearing in the instant.
Besides, he said reliance on this provision of the law is grossly misconceived and an insult to the court.
“The provision of Section 36(6) that he relied on does not provide that we must provide a name to our witnesses before bringing them to court,” he said.
Kehinde said the defence was at liberty, after the witness must have given the evidence, to ask for a stand down or an adjournment to cross examine their witness.
He said that Abubakar’s submission was a ploy to delay the trial, urging the court to discountenance the argument.
“The concern of parties should be to have the matter determined expeditiously,” he added.
“I submit that the argument of my learner brother is not relevant in this case.
“We have front-loaded the witnesses and we have also front-loaded the charge and exhibits which emanated from the defendants.
“We have also exhibited the case summary,” the senior lawyer said.
After taking all the arguments, Justice Umar adjourned until Jan..22 for definite hearing.
