The State Security Service (SSS) has reversed its earlier plan to suspend the cyberstalking trial of activist and journalist Omoyele Sowore, following a court hearing on Monday where the prosecution denied knowledge of the proposed adjournment. The development comes amid legal disputes over the case, which centers on Sowore's social media posts describing President Bola Tinubu as 'a criminal.'
The SSS had initially announced on 30 August that its Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi, directed Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Akinlolu Kehinde—Sowore’s prosecuting lawyer—to take steps toward temporarily suspending the trial. The service claimed the move aimed to allow Sowore, a presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), to participate in the 2027 election campaign. However, Kehinde denied any awareness of the plan during a court appearance, sparking confusion over the agency’s intentions.
The SSS had stated in a media release that its communications unit would formally request the adjournment from the Federal High Court starting 14 September, when proceedings were set to resume after the annual vacation. The decision, according to the service, followed a meeting between Ajayi, Kehinde, and the SSS legal directorate on 20 August. The agency argued the suspension would align with international conventions, including the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.
During Monday’s hearing, Sowore’s lead defense lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, raised the issue of the SSS’s reported plan, citing media reports that the prosecution was prepared to proceed with the case. Olumide-Fusika submitted newspaper clippings to the court, but Kehinde refuted the claims, insisting he was unaware of the reports and urging the court to disregard social media sources. He reiterated his readiness to continue the prosecution, emphasizing that the defense bore responsibility for producing a subpoenaed witness.
The dispute centered on an earlier agreement regarding the testimony of an SSS official. The defense had initially sought to subpoena SSS Director-General Ajayi over a 2025 letter related to Sowore’s social media posts. However, after intervention by Attorney-General of the Federation Lateef Fagbemi in July, the defense agreed to accept a senior SSS official in Ajayi’s place. The defense later expected this official to appear, but the prosecution argued the witness was not required.
Olumide-Fusika told the court that the defense could not proceed without the witness, while Kehinde urged the court to direct the defense to either proceed or abandon its case. Judge Muhammad Umar, after hearing both sides, granted the defense another opportunity to secure the witness and adjourned the case until 2 October for further proceedings.
Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, faces cyberstalking charges stemming from social media posts he made in August 2024. In these posts, he labeled President Tinubu a 'criminal,' a claim Sowore has consistently defended. The prosecution closed its case earlier this year after presenting a witness, but the defense has faced delays due to the witness dispute. In May, Judge Umar rejected Sowore’s no-case submission, compelling him to enter his defense.
Sowore’s defense opened in July with the testimony of Deji Adeyanju, a public affairs commentator. The case then stalled over the production of the SSS witness, leading to back-and-forth legal arguments about the pace of proceedings. The latest adjournment underscores the challenges in moving the trial forward, with both sides citing procedural and legal complexities.
The SSS’s initial plan to suspend the trial raised concerns about potential political interference in judicial processes. Critics argued that delaying the case until after the 2027 election could undermine the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. However, the SSS maintained that the adjournment was a procedural measure to ensure fairness and compliance with international legal frameworks.
Legal experts noted that the SSS’s reversal highlights the tension between state security agencies and the judiciary. The agency’s involvement in the case has drawn scrutiny, particularly given Sowore’s role as a prominent journalist and political figure. The situation also reflects broader debates about the balance between national security and freedom of expression in Nigeria.
The trial’s outcome could have significant implications for press freedom and the legal treatment of political dissent. Sowore’s case has been closely watched by media watchdogs and civil society groups, who view it as a test of Nigeria’s commitment to democratic principles. The adjournment until 2 October leaves the legal battle unresolved, with both sides preparing for further arguments.
The SSS’s handling of the case has also raised questions about its transparency and accountability. The agency’s initial announcement of the suspension, followed by the prosecution’s denial, has created confusion about its internal decision-making processes. This ambiguity has fueled speculation about the motives behind the proposed adjournment.
Public interest in the case has been heightened by Sowore’s status as a presidential candidate. His legal challenges against the government, including a lawsuit over the failure to transfer power to Vice President Kashim Shettima, have positioned him as a key figure in Nigeria’s political landscape. The cyberstalking trial adds another layer to his legal and political struggles.
The Federal High Court’s role in this case remains critical. Judge Umar’s decisions have shaped the trajectory of the proceedings, from rejecting Sowore’s no-case submission to granting the defense additional time to secure witnesses. The court’s ability to manage the case without external pressures will be a key factor in its resolution.
As the trial approaches its next hearing, the legal and political stakes continue to rise. The SSS’s reversal of its suspension plan underscores the fluid nature of the case, with both the prosecution and defense navigating complex legal and procedural challenges. The outcome will likely set a precedent for similar cases involving state security agencies and political figures.
The case also highlights the broader challenges facing Nigeria’s judiciary, including delays, procedural disputes, and the influence of external actors. The SSS’s involvement in the trial has drawn attention to the need for clear guidelines on the role of security agencies in legal proceedings. The court’s handling of the case will be closely monitored by legal experts and the public alike.
The adjournment until 2 October provides a temporary reprieve but does not resolve the underlying issues. Both parties are expected to continue their legal strategies, with the next hearing offering a critical opportunity to advance the case. The outcome will have lasting implications for Sowore, the SSS, and the broader legal landscape in Nigeria.
The SSS’s backtracking on the suspension plan reflects the complexities of balancing national security interests with judicial independence. As the trial progresses, the court’s ability to maintain impartiality will be crucial in ensuring a fair resolution. The case remains a focal point for discussions on the rule of law, press freedom, and the role of state institutions in Nigeria’s democracy.