The prosecution in the cyberbullying trial of African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore has challenged the defence’s insistence that the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) must appear in person to testify as a subpoenaed witness.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore over posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook in August 2025, in which he described President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal” and accused him of misrepresenting the level of corruption in the country.
At Friday’s hearing, prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), argued that Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), was wrong to insist that the DSS Director-General must personally appear in court to testify.
Kehinde relied on a Supreme Court decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR Part 498, page 347 at 373.
He argued that the decision established that where a subpoena is directed to a named public official, it would be unreasonable to insist that only the official named in the subpoena must appear in compliance with it.
Kehinde recalled that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) attended court on July 28, 2026, leading the prosecution team, to make the same point: it was wrong for the defence to insist that the DG, DSS, must testify as its witness in person.
He said it was based on the parties’ understanding that an official of the DSS should be nominated to stand in for the DG, DSS.
The prosecuting lawyer told the court that, in fidelity to that understanding, an official of the DSS was designated for that purpose. He said that official was present in court and ready for the business of the day.
He added that the DG, DSS, has no personal interest in this case. He acted in an official capacity, noting that, since the DSS has cases in the various divisions of the FHC, it was practically impossible to expect the DG to attend all proceedings.
Kehinde said, “This case is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case on March 16, 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defence to argue that, at one point, it agreed that an official of the DSS should come, but now it is insisting on the DG alone.
“The decision as to who should attend court is at the discretion of the court, not that of the defence. An official of the DSS is competent to give evidence in place of the DG,” Kehinde said.
Earlier, Olumide-Fusika claimed that the prosecution repudiated the parties’ understanding that a DSS official should attend court in place of its DG by allegedly failing to produce the said official on the last date.
Olumide-Fusika argued that, since the name on the subpoena and the hearing notice issued was that of the DG, he must attend court in person.
He said the decision to issue a subpoena on the DG, DSS, in his personal capacity was necessitated by the fact that the second defence witness, Uwem Davies (an official of the DSS), had, while testifying, kept saying that it was the only DG who could answer some of the questions put to him.
Justice Mohammed Umar has adjourned the matter until October 6 for a ruling on whether the DG, DSS, could be compelled to appear in person and testify as a defence witness regarding actions taken by the agency.
