By Nchetachi Chukwuajah
Activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, will face a cybercrime charge brought against him by the Federal Government alone, as an Abuja Federal High Court struck out Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation (formerly Twitter) from the case as defendants.
The development followed the prosecution’s decision to amend the charge, which effectively leaves Sowore as the sole defendant in the matter.
On December 2, 2025, Sowore was arraigned on a cybercrime charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, alongside Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation.
According to the prosecution, Sowore was alleged to have published false statements through posts on his verified social media accounts against President Bola Tinubu, describing him as a “criminal.”
At the resumed hearing before the trial judge, Justice Umar, the lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that an amended charge filed on December 5, 2025, was ready to be read without objections from the defence.
The prosecution subsequently withdrew the earlier charge and formally applied that the names of the second and third defendants (Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation) be struck out.
Justice Umar granted the application and struck out both companies from the case.
The amended charge alleged that Sowore, on or about August 25, 2025, knowingly or intentionally sent a message via his verified X handle, @YeleSowore, which the prosecution claims was false and capable of causing a breakdown of law and order.
According to the charge, Sowore posted, “This criminal @officialABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is NO MORE corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
The prosecution alleged that the post amounted to cyberstalking, contrary to Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
When the charge was read, Sowore pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution applied to proceed with the trial and sought to present its first witness, but the move was opposed by defence counsel, Marshal Abubakar.
Abubakar argued that the prosecution was not ready for trial, contending that the amended charge was defective for failing to disclose the identity of any prosecution witness or attach witness statements.
Relying on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, Abubakar argued that the omission violated Sowore’s right to a fair hearing, insisting that the defence could not adequately prepare without knowing the witnesses and evidence to be relied upon.
He said, “The witness sought to be called is unknown to the defence and, indeed, unknown to the court.”
The prosecution counsel, Kehinde, responded by dismissing the objection as speculative, arguing that Section 36(6) of the Constitution does not mandate the prosecution to disclose the identity of a witness before calling him to testify.
He added that the defence was at liberty to seek an adjournment to enable cross-examination, noting that the prosecution intended to call only one witness, who was already in court.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Umar directed the prosecution to provide the defence with the witness statement and adjourned the matter till Thursday, January 22, for a definite hearing.
