Courtroom Showdown in Abuja: Sowore’s Defence Challenges DSS and Re-Frames the “Drug Baron” Controversy
In a dramatic legal development at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the ongoing trial of activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore took an unexpected turn as his defence counsel leveraged historic statements by public commentator Reno Omokri to challenge the Department of State Services (DSS). The move, aimed at undermining key assertions from the prosecution, has reignited public debate about free speech rights, accountability, and the consistency of state actions.
The case, which centres on alleged cyberstalking and online defamation against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, entered a contentious new phase when the defence introduced controversial video clips as part of its strategy. These clips feature a now-confirmed ambassadorial nominee, Reno Omokri, making remarks about President Tinubu that Sowore’s legal team argues undercut the prosecution’s claims and spotlight contradictions in the state’s handling of dissenting voices.
Background: Sowore’s Cyberstalking Case and the DSS Position
Omoyele Sowore, a well-known human rights activist and publisher, was arraigned before the Federal High Court on January 19, 2026, following charges brought by the Department of State Services. The DSS alleges that Sowore’s social media posts from August 2025 — in which he described President Tinubu as a “criminal” — amounted to cyberstalking under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024. The prosecution contends these posts were false, defamatory, and capable of causing public unrest.
During testimony, a DSS operative also testified that Sowore’s posts generated significant reactions and tension online — a factor the agency claims justifies its aggressive pursuit of the case. The DSS further indicated that it even reached out to social media platforms to request takedowns of the contested content and issued formal communications instructing Sowore to retract his remarks.
Turning Point: Tendering of Reno Omokri’s Video Clips
The defining moment in this phase of the trial occurred when Sowore’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, submitted a USB flash drive containing multiple video clips of Reno Omokri making statements about President Tinubu. Despite objections from the prosecution, Judge Mohammed Garba Umar ruled that the clips fulfilled the statutory requirements for admissible electronic evidence and admitted them as court exhibits.
One of the most spotlighted videos shows Omokri — who was later confirmed by the Nigerian Senate as an ambassadorial nominee — describing President Tinubu as a “drug lord” during a 2023 broadcast interview. In that clip, Omokri asserted that he possessed documentary evidence to support the claim and had pursued legal processes in the United States related to alleged drugs-linked financial investigations involving Tinubu.
The defence counsel used this recording as a springboard to question the credibility of the DSS, challenging why the same security agency that now prosecutes Sowore had previously cleared Omokri — a public critic of Tinubu — for sensitive diplomatic appointments. During cross-examination, the DSS witness admitted he could not explain the reason for Omokri’s clearance, deepening that line of inquiry.
DSS Caught Off-Guard on Multiple Fronts
Sowore’s legal team did not stop with the Omokri videos. Counsel also tendered a separate video allegedly showing President Tinubu himself affirming that Nigerians have the right to criticize, disagree with, or even insult their leaders. The defence argued that this statement underscores constitutional protections of free expression — protections they insist have been infringed by the cyberstalking prosecution.
To the surprise of the court and courtroom observers, the DSS agent on the stand acknowledged that he was unaware of Tinubu having made such a statement. The judge, however, admitted the video, allowing it to become part of the official court record. This outcome further bolstered the defence’s position that the state apparatus may be selectively applying legal standards to curtail speech rather than protect public order.
Prosecution’s Objections and Court’s Ruling
Prosecution counsel, led by Senior Advocate Akinlolu Kehinde, strongly objected to the admissibility of the Omokri clips. The state argued that the videos were an attempt to “smuggle” extraneous material into evidence and that the individual who compiled them was not present as a witness, potentially violating procedural rules. Nonetheless, Justice Umar overruled these objections, stating that the defence had sufficiently satisfied the evidentiary requirements under Section 84 of the Evidence Act regarding electronic evidence.
The judge’s decision demonstrates a willingness to allow broader contextual material into the trial record — even if that material is politically charged — so long as legal standards for admissibility are met. This could have significant implications for how political speech and historical statements are treated in Nigerian courts going forward.
The Omokri Controversy: Retracted Claims and Ambassadorships
Following the courtroom airing of Omokri’s past remarks, the commentator himself publicly responded. According to statements reported in multiple verified news outlets, Omokri acknowledged that he had made the controversial statements about Tinubu between 2022 and 2023 but later withdrew them, declaring them false. He emphasised that he had publicly and repeatedly retracted those allegations and affirmed his support for Tinubu since his inauguration as president.
Omokri’s reversal underscores the complexity of the defence’s reliance on those earlier remarks, and raises legal questions about whether withdrawn statements — particularly those that have been publicly retracted — can legitimately be used in court to challenge claims of defamation or cyberstalking. Omokri himself has argued that under evidence law, such past statements cannot be used to prove the truth of matters asserted if they have been formally withdrawn or recanted.
Nonetheless, Sowore’s legal team maintains that the fact Omokri was nonetheless cleared by the DSS for ambassadorial service despite previously making harsh statements about the president points to a striking inconsistency in how dissent is treated and raises questions about motivations behind their client’s prosecution.
Implications for Free Speech and Political Accountability
This case has rapidly evolved into more than just a legal battle over social media posts. It now touches on broader issues of political expression, state power, and the boundaries of lawful dissent in Nigeria. Both supporters of free expression and critics of the government are watching closely, interpreting developments as either a test of democratic tolerance or a troubling sign of selective prosecution.
Legal experts and civil society advocates have weighed in publicly in other forums, warning that heavy-handed prosecution of political speech could chill civic engagement unless checked by clear judicial restraint. Meanwhile, the DSS maintains that its actions are rooted in concerns over national security and public order, rather than political retribution.
What’s Next in the Sowore Trial
Following the admission of these contentious pieces of evidence, Justice Umar adjourned proceedings to February 4, 2026, for continuation of cross-examination and further hearings. As the case unfolds, observers anticipate that both sides will delve deeper into constitutional protections of speech, the application of cybercrime law, and the standards for what constitutes defamatory or destabilising conduct online.
In the meantime, the courtroom drama sparked by video evidence and conflicting narratives has already captured national attention — and highlighted how legal battles over political speech can shine a spotlight on the evolving landscape of Nigerian democracy.
0 Comments