The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, against the Department of State Services (DSS) and Meta Platforms Incorporated (formerly Facebook).
Justice Mohammed Umar, in a judgment, held that the suit filed by Sowore, also a politician, lacked merit and accordingly dismissed.
Justice Umar, who said that the applicant was not entitled to the reliefs sought, granted the respondents’ application for a cost.
Although a sum of N5 million naira each was requested, the judge awarded the sum of N500, 000 each against Sowore, which must be paid to the DSS, its DG and Meta Platforms, totalling N1. 5 million.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Sowore had claimed, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1887/2025, that the decision by Meta Incorporated, acting on the instruction of the DSS and its DG, took down a post he made about President Bola Tinubu and deactivated his Facebook account.
He, therefore, sued the DSS, its DG, Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook), Meta Platforms Ltd and Facebook Nigeria Operarions Limited as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
Sowore had on Aug. 26, 2025, published a post on his Facebook account, in which he referred to President Tinubu as a “criminal.”
In the post, Sowore said: “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
Sowore, through his lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, argued that the decision by Meta Incorporated, allegedly acting on the directive of the DSS and its DG, to take down his post and deactivate his account, without hearing from him, contravened his rights to fair hearing, to freedom of expression and to associate.
He then formulated three questions for determination.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Umar resolved the three issues, identified for determination, against Sowore, declined to grant any of the reliefs sought and proceeded to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.
The judge, in resolving the first issue, held that Sowore wrongly made allegation of contravention of his right to fair hearing against the three respondents; DSS, its DG and Meta Platforms Incorporated.
The judge held that the claims made by Sowore against the respondents did not relate to fair hearing which the law, under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure envisaged.
“The law is that, to seek to enforce fundamental right to fair hearing provided under Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the alleged violation must be in respect of proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law.
“There would be no case of infringement of the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution when the decision alleged to have violated one’s constitutional right to fair hearing is that of a non-judicial body.
“In the instant case. the alleged violation to right to fair hearing of the applicant (Sowore) was made against the respondents, which were not contemplated under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as explained by judicial authorities.
“In the light of the above, it is my holding here that fair hearing is not applicable to the instant case,” he said.
In resolving the second issue, Justice Umar held that the complaint made by the DSS and its DG about Sowore’s Aug. 26, 2025 Facebook post and the decision by Meta Incorporated to take the post down and deactivate his account did not amount to violations of his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association, guaranteed under Section 39 and 40 of the Constitution.
The judge further held that the rights to freedom of expression and association are, like all other constitutionally guaranteed rights, which are not absolute.
He said: “It is to be noted that the protection of rights and reputation of others is one of the instances where right to freedom of expression can be curtailed.
“Expression can be restricted to protect the rights, reputation, or privacy of others.
‘This is to say, where an expression is meant to disparage individual or group of individual, the law will not allow it.
“This is to say, the law will frown at any expression that will cast aspersion on others in the name of expressing constitutional right to freedom of expression.
“This is the rationale behind the derogation of the fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended}.”
The judge also held that “the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed under our laws, provided that citizens must be cautious with the reputation of others while they expressed and disseminate thet opinions.”
He added that the DSS and its DG, in complaining to Meta Incorporated that Sowore’s post violated Nigeria’s laws, did not violate his (Sowore’s) rights, but only took the right step to use Facebook reporting channels to report the post of the applicant.
According to him, this court agreed with the submission of the first and second respondents that whatever action Facebook has taken is entirely done under its own policies and independent judgement.
“Therefore, this court did not see how the freedom of expression and or association of applicant under the circumstances presented is infringed,” he said.
In resolving issue three, which is
whether the applicant was entitled to the reliefs sought, the judge held that the reliefs sought by the applicant were declaratory in nature, which the applicant was under a duty to succeed by the strength of his case.
“A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant has failed to convince this court that his rights as guaranteed under Sections 36(1), 39 and 41 have been or are likely to be threatened by the respondents.
“This court is of the firm view that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and I so hold.
“On the whole, I find no merit in this application and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Umar said.Following the applications for cost made by lawyer to the DSS and its DG, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, and counsel to Meta Incorporated, Victoria Bassey, Justice Umar awarded a cost of N1.5million against Sowore, at N500,000 to each of the 1st to 3rd respondents.
