Welcome to Nigeria: Where Yesterday’s Insults Become Today’s Evidence
💥 EXPLOSIVE COURTROOM DRAMA: How Sowore Turned Tinubu’s Trial Into a Political Cinema — The “Rotten Fish” and “Drunkard” Videos Shaking Nigeria’s Free Speech Debate
The Federal High Court in Abuja was anything but quiet as proceedings unfolded in what is fast becoming one of Nigeria’s most controversial political trials in recent history. What was supposed to be a routine continuation of the cyberstalking case against activist, journalist, and Sahara Reporters publisher Omoyele Sowore suddenly transformed into a full-blown political spectacle—one that has ignited nationwide debate, dominated social media timelines, and reopened old wounds about power, hypocrisy, and freedom of expression in Nigeria.
In a dramatic twist that many observers have described as unprecedented, Sowore’s legal team effectively turned the courtroom into a cinema of political memory, tendering video clips of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, recorded years before his presidency, in which he allegedly used harsh and derogatory language against former Nigerian leaders. Within minutes, the courtroom atmosphere shifted. The case was no longer just about Sowore or a single social media post—it became a symbolic trial of double standards, selective justice, and the limits of free speech in Nigeria’s democracy.
The Case at the Center of the Storm
Omoyele Sowore is currently standing trial over allegations of cyberstalking, following a post on social media in which he referred to President Tinubu as a “criminal.” Nigerian security agencies argue that the statement violates provisions of the Cybercrimes Act and poses potential threats to national security. Sowore, however, has consistently maintained that his statement falls squarely within the boundaries of political commentary and constitutionally protected free speech.
What happened in court, however, elevated the matter from a legal dispute to a national conversation.
When the Defense Played the Past Back to Power
In what many have called a masterstroke of legal strategy, Sowore’s lawyers presented video evidence showing President Tinubu, during his years as an opposition political figure, making deeply insulting remarks about sitting presidents at the time.
According to the defense, these clips were not fabricated, edited, or obtained illegally. They are publicly available recordings, circulated widely over the years and familiar to many Nigerians who have followed the country’s political history.
The Videos Tendered in Court
Clip One: A younger Bola Ahmed Tinubu, speaking passionately at a political rally, allegedly referring to former President Olusegun Obasanjo as a “rotten fish”—a phrase meant to convey moral decay, failed leadership, and political disappointment.
Clip Two: Another speech in which Tinubu reportedly described former President Goodluck Jonathan as a “drunkard”, accusing his administration of incompetence and reckless governance that was allegedly pushing Nigeria toward crisis.
As the clips played, the courtroom reportedly fell into stunned silence.
The implication was clear and deliberate.
If such statements—made publicly, loudly, and without restraint—did not attract criminal prosecution at the time, why should Sowore’s own political criticism now be treated as a crime?
The “What’s Good for the Goose” Argument
At the heart of Sowore’s defense is a simple but powerful question: Is Nigeria operating a two-tier system of free speech—one for the powerful and another for critics?
Sowore’s legal logic, as laid out in court, was straightforward:
> If the current President of Nigeria could freely insult sitting presidents in the past without being charged, arrested, or prosecuted, then criminalizing similar expressions today amounts to selective justice.
The defense argued that democracy thrives on robust, sometimes uncomfortable political speech, and that criminalizing insults—especially when selectively enforced—poses a serious threat to civil liberties.
Courtroom Fireworks: DSS Under Pressure
The tension in court escalated during the cross-examination of Cyril Nosike, a witness from the Department of State Services (DSS). Sowore’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, subjected the witness to intense questioning that exposed what many observers consider troubling inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
Key Revelations from the Cross-Examination
No Formal Complaint by Tinubu: The DSS witness admitted under oath that President Tinubu did not personally file any complaint against Sowore regarding the controversial post.
Security Justification, Not Defamation: The DSS claimed Sowore was charged not because the President felt defamed, but because the post allegedly had “security implications.” This explanation raised eyebrows, especially among legal analysts who argue that criticism alone does not equate to a security threat.
The Brazil Video: Sowore’s “criminal” comment was reportedly linked to a video of Tinubu speaking in Brazil, which Sowore’s team insists is authentic, publicly available, and widely circulated long before the trial.
Perhaps the most explosive moment came when the defense questioned the DSS on why Reno Omokri, a known political commentator who has previously referred to Tinubu as a “drug lord”, was reportedly cleared for an ambassadorial role without prosecution—while Sowore faces criminal charges.
The courtroom reportedly buzzed as the implication of unequal enforcement of the law became impossible to ignore.
Nigeria Reacts: X (Twitter) Goes into Meltdown
Unsurprisingly, the trial has ignited fierce debate across Nigeria’s digital space, particularly on X (formerly Twitter), where hashtags related to Sowore, Tinubu, free speech, and cyberstalking trended for hours.
Two Strongly Opposed Camps Have Emerged
Team Sowore
Argues the trial is a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent.
Believes the video evidence exposes hypocrisy at the highest level of power.
Warns that criminalizing insults sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens.
The Prosecution’s Supporters
Maintain that calling a sitting President a “criminal” goes beyond fair criticism.
Argue that such statements could undermine public trust and national stability.
Insist that freedom of speech must have limits, especially in sensitive political environments.
The Bigger Question: Free Speech or Criminal Offense?
Beyond the personalities involved, this case has reopened a long-standing debate in Nigeria: Where does political criticism end and criminality begin?
Legal scholars point out that Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but laws such as the Cybercrimes Act have increasingly been used to regulate online speech. Critics argue that these laws are often applied selectively, targeting opposition figures while shielding those in power.
Supporters of reform insist that democracy cannot flourish where insults are criminalized only when they come from the opposition, while similar language from political heavyweights is dismissed as “politics.”
Adjournment and What Lies Ahead
Justice Mohammed Umar has adjourned the case until February 4, 2026, for further hearing. However, with the controversial video evidence now firmly in the public domain, many believe the legal outcome may be secondary to the political consequences already unfolding.
This trial is no longer just about Omoyele Sowore.
It has become a referendum on Nigeria’s commitment to free speech, a test of whether the law applies equally to the powerful and the powerless, and a mirror reflecting the contradictions embedded in the nation’s political culture.
Final Thought: A Trial That Won’t Stay in the Courtroom
Whether Sowore is eventually convicted or acquitted, one thing is certain: the conversation sparked by the “rotten fish” and “drunkard” videos will not fade anytime soon. Nigerians are being forced to confront uncomfortable truths about power, privilege, and accountability.
💬 Should it be a crime to insult a President?
💬 If Tinubu could say it then, should Sowore be punished for saying it now?
The courtroom has spoken—but now, the nation is talking. 🔥
0 Comments