Sowore Cybercrime Trial: Court Dismisses Documents Mentioning Tinubu

In his ongoing prosecution for allegedly cyberstalking President Bola Tinubu, activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore’s defense team attempted to present papers, but the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed them on Wednesday.

According to reports, Sowore is being charged with two revised charges of cybercrime for a social media post 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.

During cross-examination, Marshal Abubakar, Sowore’s attorney, tried to present internet articles supposedly containing disparaging remarks made by Tinubu about former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan in 2011.

According to the statements, Obasanjo was referred to as “expired meat,” Jonathan as “a drunkard and sinking fisherman,” and his administration as “corrupt and shameless.”

In order to assist Sowore’s defense and show contradictions in Tinubu’s stance on corruption and public discourse, Abubakar contended that the documents were pertinent.

The prosecution’s first witness, a Department of State Services (DSS) employee, claimed that he was not aware of the contents of the records, but trial judge Justice Mohammed Umar decided that the defense could not present the documents through him.

The witness did not author or acknowledge knowledge of the items, so the judge ruled that they could not be used as evidence.

The court also dismissed other documents that detailed reports of suspected ongoing corruption in the nation, such as arrests and dismissals of public officials by the DSS and EFCC.

The prosecution’s primary witness, a DSS officer, told the court he had no idea how Nigeria ranked on international corruption indices and was unable to verify whether or not Reno Omokri or Femi Fani-Kayode had publicly accused Tinubu of corruption or other illegal activity on social media.

In an effort to demonstrate Nigeria’s ongoing battle with corruption, Abubakar claimed that Sowore’s post could not be considered fraudulent or illegal in light of the acknowledged difficulties.

The prosecutor uses the Evidence Act to refute the evidence.
The records were objected to by prosecution attorney Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), who claimed that they did not relate to the cyberstalking charges and did not adhere to Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic evidence.

Kehinde urged 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 restricted when Justice Umar supported the objection and declared the documents inadmissible.

Abubakar requested an adjournment at the conclusion of the proceedings so that the cross-examination could continue.

The case was postponed to March 5, 2026, for additional hearings by Justice Umar.

Tap.