Court Rejects Sowore’s Documents in Defence of Alleged Cyber-bullying Charge

Alex Enumah in Abuja

A Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, rejected two sets of documents tendered by former presidential candidate and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, in defence of his trial on alleged cyberstalking against President Bola Tinubu.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in two separate rulings, declined to admit the documents on the grounds that Sowore could not tender the documents through the prosecution witness, especially when the witness claimed not to have any knowledge about them.

The federal government, through the Department of State Services (DSS) is prosecuting Sowore, convener of #RevolutionNow protest, for allegedly making false claim against Tinubu, by calling the president a criminal in a post he made on his X handle and Facebook accounts.

At the resumed trial on Wednesday, Sowore’s lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, sought to tender a set of documents orally in defence of the charge of cyberstalking against him.

Among the documents he sought to tender were media reports about DSS’ dismissal of 115 officials for misconduct, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charging five ex-governors with corruption, EFCC’s sacking of 27 officials over fraud and misconduct, and EFCC’s arrest of some ex-staff of NNPCL over N7.2 billion fraud.

But the judge, in his ruling, agreed with prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, that the best opportunity for the defendant to tender the documents was during the conduct of his defence.

The judge held that since the first prosecution witness (PW1) being cross-examined by Abubakar said he knew nothing about the publications contained in the documents, such documents could not be tendered through the witness.

Umar said, “You cannot tender a document through a witness who said he did not know anything about it. The document is marked as rejected.”

In the second ruling, the judge rejected another set of documents, which included printouts of publications, which Abubakar claimed showed that Tinubu had in 2011 called then President Goodluck Jonathan a drunkard and sinking fisherman, and also called former President Olusegun Obasanjo an expired meat.

The judge marked the documents rejected for the same reason he gave in rejecting the first set of documents.

Umar frowned on the report by the prosecuting lawyer that a member of the defence team had live streamed previous proceedings in the case and urged the court to order an investigation to identify the person behind it.

Although Abubakar denied that any member of the defence team was involved and claimed that it could have been done by the DSS or people in the presidency, the judge said such conduct amounted to contempt of court.

Abubakar urged the court to only caution against a repeat of such incident, but to decline the request by the prosecuting lawyer that an investigation be ordered by the court.

Umar said it was easy to identify the person behind the incident and that he could direct security agencies to investigate the issue because it was a serious matter.

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.

While being cross-examined, PW2, Cyril Nosike (an official of the DSS), said as at the time Sowore made the post in respect of which he was being prosecuted, Tinubu’s official X (twitter) handle was @officialABAT

The witness rejected Abubakar’s suggestion that the president’s official X handle was @PBAT.

Nosike said he did not tender any court judgement before the court to show that corruption had ended in Nigeria.

On whether there was corruption in Nigeria, the witness said he was not a politician and could not make comments on such an issue. He added that the defence lawyer was merely asking for his opinion, saying, “I am not here to give an opinion, but to state the facts.”

He faulted claims by Abubakar that DSS dismissed 115 of its officials for corruption, and explained that they were dismissed after internal investigation and not because of corruption, as claimed by the defence lawyer.

The witness denied knowing that in 2025 EFCC charged five ex-governor to court because of corruption; that EFCC arrested ex-staff of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) over N7.2 billion fraud; and that EFCC dismissed 27 of its officers for fraud and misconduct.

On whether as a security officer he was aware of global corruption ranking, the witness said he was not aware of global corruption ranking. He also said he was not aware of the Transparency International corruption index.

The witness equally said he was not aware that Nigeria was ranked 140 among the 180 countries captured in the global corruption index.

On whether he knew that as at 2011, the current president was a major opposition figure in the country, the witness said he did not know.

On whether he was aware the in 2011 the current president called then President Goodluck Jonathan corrupt and shameless, the witness said he was not aware.

Nosike also said he was not aware that the current president called Jonathan a drunkard and a sinking fisherman.

On whether he knew former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the witness said yes. He, however, said he was not aware that Tinubu called ex-President Obasanjo an expired meat.

The witness said he would be surprised if shown documents where Tinubu allegedly made such comments about the two former presidents.

When asked if he had heard of the name Femi Fani Kayode, who is now an ambassador designate, the witness said yes, but added that he could not recall that Fani Kayode was a vocal critic of the president before his nomination as ambassador.

Nosike denied knowledge of the claim by Abubakar that Fani Kayode made a post on social media alleging that Tinubu knew something about the death of Funso Williams, who was a governorship candidate in Lagos State.

The witness said he was not aware that DSS screened Fani Kayode as an ambassador designate because that did not form part of his schedule.

Nosike said he could not recall that Funso Williams was murdered in Lagos while Tinubu was the governor of the state.

He admitted knowing Chief Reno Omokri and confirmed that Omokri was an ambassador designate, appointed by this government.

The witness said he was not aware of Omokri’s social media post claiming that Tinubu knew about the murder of Funso Williams, adding that he has not come across videos of Omokri saying Tinubu knows about Funso Williams’ murder.

The witness said he was not aware that Omokri staged a protest against Tinubu in London, claiming that the president was involved in drug trafficking and knew about Funso Williams’ murder.

After spending one hour and 40 minutes on the cross examination of the PW1, Umar asked Abubakar when he was going to conclude with the witness, having cross-examined him for two days.

Abubakar prayed the court for one more day, claiming he has more important questions and documents to confront the witness with.

Responding, Kehinde recalled that Abubakar had, on the last date, sought for additional one hour to conclude, but had spent one hour and 40 minutes and yet claimed he was not done with the witness.

Kehinde said he would prefer to allow the judge decide whether or not to grant the adjournment being sought by the defence.

Ruling, Umar stated that this was the second day the defence had been cross examining the PW1.

The judge added that although on the last date, Abubakar sought for one hour, he had spent one hour and 40 minutes and had again asked for additional date.

He, however, granted the adjournment sought by the defence, saying, “In the spirit of fairness, I will adjourn for the last time for cross examination,” and proceeded to adjourn till March 5 for further cross examination.