Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has rejected two sets of documents tendered by politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore, in his ongoing trial on alleged cyberstalking.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over allegations that he made false claims against President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as a criminal in posts on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts.
In the first ruling, Justice Umar declined an oral application by Sowore’s counsel, Marshall Abubakar, seeking the admission of a set of documents comprising printouts of publications.
The publications included media reports on the DSS’ dismissal of 115 officials for misconduct; the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charging five former governors with corruption; the EFCC’s dismissal of 27 officials over fraud and misconduct; and the EFCC’s arrest of some former officials of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) over an alleged ₦7.2 billion fraud.
Justice Umar agreed with the prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), that the appropriate time for the defendant to tender the documents would be during the presentation of his defence.
The judge held that since the first prosecution witness (PW1), who was being cross-examined by Abubakar, said he knew nothing about the publications contained in the documents, the documents could not be tendered through him.
In a second ruling, the court also rejected another set of documents comprising printouts of publications which Abubakar claimed showed that President Tinubu, in 2011, referred to then President Goodluck Jonathan as “a drunkard and a sinking fisherman,” and former President Olusegun Obasanjo as “an expired meat.”
The judge marked the documents as rejected for the same reasons given in rejecting the first set.
Justice Umar also frowned at a report by the prosecuting counsel that a member of the defence team had live-streamed earlier proceedings in the case and urged the court to order an investigation to identify the person responsible.
Although Abubakar denied that any member of the defence team was involved and suggested that the act could have been carried out by the DSS or individuals in the Presidency, the judge described such conduct as contempt of court.
Abubakar urged the court to merely caution against a recurrence and to decline the prosecution’s request for an investigation.
Justice Umar stated that it would be easy to identify the person behind the incident and that he could direct security agencies to investigate, describing the matter as serious.
Although the judge promised to address the issue at the end of the day’s proceedings, he remained silent on it when adjourning the case.
During cross-examination, the second prosecution witness (PW2), Cyril Nosike, an official of the DSS, said that at the time Sowore made the posts for which he is being prosecuted, President Tinubu’s official X handle was @officialABAT.
He rejected Abubakar’s suggestion that the President’s official handle was @PBAT.
Nosike said he did not tender any court judgment to show that corruption had ended in Nigeria.
When asked about corruption in the country, the witness said he was not a politician and could not comment, noting that the defence counsel was merely asking for his opinion. He stated: “I am not here to give my opinion, but to state facts.”
He faulted Abubakar’s claim that the DSS dismissed 115 officials for corruption, explaining that they were dismissed following internal investigations and not for corruption.
The witness denied knowledge that, in 2025, the EFCC charged five former governors to court over corruption, arrested former NNPCL staff over a ₦7.2 billion fraud, or dismissed 27 of its officials for fraud and misconduct.
On global corruption rankings, Nosike said he was not aware of any global corruption ranking or the Transparency International corruption index. He also said he was unaware that Nigeria was ranked 140th among 180 countries on the index.
Asked whether he knew that President Tinubu was a major opposition figure in 2011, the witness said he did not know.
He also said he was unaware that Tinubu had, in 2011, called then President Jonathan corrupt and shameless, or described him as a drunkard and a sinking fisherman.
Nosike confirmed knowing former President Olusegun Obasanjo but said he was unaware that Tinubu referred to Obasanjo as “an expired meat.”
He said he would be surprised if shown documents indicating that Tinubu made such comments about the former presidents.
On Femi Fani-Kayode, now an ambassador-designate, the witness said he knew him but could not recall that he was a vocal critic of the President before his nomination.
Nosike denied knowledge of claims that Fani-Kayode made social media posts alleging that President Tinubu knew something about the death of Funso Williams, a former Lagos State governorship candidate.
He said he was not aware that the DSS screened Fani-Kayode as an ambassador-designate, as it did not form part of his schedule.
The witness also said he could not recall that Funso Williams was murdered in Lagos while Tinubu was governor of the state.
He admitted knowing Reno Omokri and confirmed that Omokri is an ambassador-designate appointed by the current government.
However, he said he was unaware of Omokri’s alleged social media posts claiming that Tinubu knew about Williams’ murder, or of any videos where Omokri made such claims.
Nosike also said he was not aware that Omokri staged a protest against President Tinubu in London alleging involvement in drug trafficking and knowledge of Williams’ murder.
After one hour and 40 minutes of cross-examination, Justice Umar asked Abubakar when he intended to conclude, noting that the witness had already been cross-examined for two days.
Abubakar sought one additional day, saying he still had important questions and documents to put to the witness.
Responding, Kehinde recalled that on the previous sitting, Abubakar had requested one extra hour but had exceeded it by spending one hour and 40 minutes and was still not done. He said he would leave it to the court to decide on the request.
In his ruling, Justice Umar noted that it was the second day of cross-examination of the witness. He observed that although the defence earlier sought one hour, it exceeded the time and again requested another date.
Nevertheless, the judge granted the adjournment in the interest of fairness, stating that it would be the final opportunity for cross-examination.
Justice Umar adjourned the case to March 5 for continuation of cross-examination.
