In his ongoing prosecution for allegedly cyberstalking President Bola Tinubu, activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore’s defense team submitted papers, but the Federal High Court in Abuja rejected them on Wednesday.
According to reports, Sowore is facing two revised counts of cybercrime for a social media post he made on August 25, 2025, in which he called the President a “criminal” in response to Tinubu’s assertion that corruption had been eradicated in Nigeria during his tour to Brazil.
Marshal Abubakar, Sowore’s attorney, attempted to present internet publications reportedly containing disparaging remarks made by Tinubu about former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 during cross-examination.
According to the statements, Obasanjo was called “expired meat,” Jonathan was called “a drunkard and sinking fisherman,” and his administration was called “corrupt and shameless.”
Abubakar maintained that the records were pertinent to help Sowore’s defense and show contradictions in Tinubu’s stance on corruption and public discourse.
Justice Mohammed Umar, the trial judge, decided that the defense could not present the documents through the prosecution’s first witness, a Department of State Services (DSS) employee, who had stated in court that he was not aware of their contents.
The judge ruled that the materials could not be entered into evidence since the witness neither created them nor acknowledged knowing about them.
Other documents that detailed reports of suspected ongoing corruption in the nation, including as arrests and dismissals of public officials by the DSS and EFCC, were also dismissed by the court.
The prosecution’s main witness, a DSS officer, told the court he did not know Nigeria’s position on international corruption indices and was unable to verify whether people like Femi Fani-Kayode or Reno Omokri had publicly accused Tinubu of corruption or other illegal activities on social media.
Abubakar had made an effort to provide proof of Nigeria’s ongoing battle with corruption, contending that, in light of the acknowledged difficulties, Sowore’s appointment could not be considered fraudulent or illegal.
Citing the Evidence Act, the prosecutor objects to the evidence.
Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), the prosecution’s attorney, objected to the records, claiming they violated Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic evidence, and were unrelated to the cyberstalking charges.
Kehinde asked the court to strike out the papers, claiming that the defense was trying to divert attention from the main points of the case.
Sowore’s defense was further constrained when Justice Umar supported the objection and declared the documents inadmissible.
Abubakar requested an adjournment at the end of the hearings so that the cross-examination could continue.
For a follow-up hearing, Justice Umar postponed the case to March 5, 2026.