Tinubu Cybercrime Trial: Prosecution Slams Sowore’s Demand for DSS DG’s Personal Appearance as ‘Absurd’
ABUJA, NIGERIA—The prosecution in the ongoing cybercrime trial of human rights activist Omoyele Sowore has described his persistent demand for the personal court appearance of the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Tosin Ajayi, as an “act of absurdity.”
Sowore is standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja over social media posts published in August 2025, in which he allegedly labeled President Bola Tinubu a “criminal” and accused him of misrepresenting the country’s corruption levels.
At the Friday hearing, lead prosecuting counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) objected to the stance of Sowore’s defense lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), who maintains that the DSS boss must testify in person as a subpoenaed defense witness.
Kehinde cited the Supreme Court precedent in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002), arguing that when a subpoena is directed at an official public title, it is legally flawed to demand that only the specific head of that institution must appear.
He reminded the court that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had previously appeared in court on July 28, 2026, to reiterate this exact point. Following that session, both legal teams reportedly reached an understanding that a designated DSS official could stand in and testify on behalf of the Director General.
Prosecution Defends DSS Head’s Absence
The prosecuting lawyer confirmed that a designated DSS official was present in court and fully prepared to testify in compliance with that previous agreement. He argued that demanding the DG’s physical presence at every court case across Nigeria’s various Federal High Court divisions is practically unfeasible.
“The DSS boss has no personal interest in this case and only acted in an official capacity,” Kehinde stated. “The prosecution closed its case since March 16, 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defense to argue that, at a point, it agreed that an official of the DSS should come, but now it is insisting on the DG alone. An official of the DSS is competent to give evidence in place of the DG.”
Defense Insists on Personal Appearance
In response, defense counsel Olumide-Fusika countered that the prosecution had already breached the mutual understanding by failing to produce the designated proxy official during the previous court date.
Because the active subpoena and hearing notices explicitly bear the title of the Director General, the defense maintains he must appear in person.
Olumide-Fusika argued that the decision to target the DG directly arose during the testimony of the second defense witness, Uwem Davies (a DSS official). According to the defense, Davies repeatedly deflected cross-examination questions by stating that only the Director General possessed the authority to answer them.
Ruling Fixed for October 6
The legal gridlock rests on whether the head of a federal security agency can be legally compelled to give personal testimony for actions executed by the organization.
Justice Mohammed Garba Umar has adjourned the matter and fixed October 6, 2026, to deliver a formal ruling on the issue.
