A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday granted Omoyele Sowore bail on self recognisance after his arraignment by the Department of State Services (DSS) on a five-count charge bordering on alleged cybercrime. Justice Mohammed Umar, who presided over the proceedings, cautioned the activist to avoid making statements capable of inciting the public against President Bola Tinubu while the matter is before the court.
Sowore, convener of the #RevolutionNow movement, pleaded not guilty to all charges. The prosecution alleges that he made derogatory posts about President Tinubu across his social media platforms, an act they claim constitutes a cybercrime offence under relevant statutes.
Before the plea was taken, Sowore’s counsel, Marshall Abubakar, moved a motion challenging the competence of the suit and arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the charges. The prosecution objected, insisting they had only just been served the defence processes and required time to file a response.
In a brief ruling, Justice Umar held that the objection to jurisdiction was premature for hearing since the prosecution was served that morning. He said the state must be given adequate time to file its counter-affidavit. The judge then ordered that the charges be read to the defendant, after which Sowore entered a not-guilty plea.
Following the plea, Abubakar applied for bail on self-recognisance. The prosecution opposed the application, contending that Sowore posed a flight risk. Justice Umar disagreed, ruling that the defendant should be admitted to bail on self-recognition. The matter was subsequently adjourned to January 19, 2026, for commencement of trial.
The case stems from a September petition filed by the DSS over Sowore’s social media posts concerning President Tinubu. In response, Sowore instituted a separate lawsuit against the DSS, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter), challenging what his legal team described as unconstitutional censorship of his accounts.
His counsel, Tope Temokun, said the suit was aimed at safeguarding free expression in Nigeria, stressing that the issues raised transcend Sowore’s personal case. According to him, the lawsuit asserts that “the survival of free speech in Nigeria” is at stake, warning that if state agencies can determine “who may speak and what may be said,” then no citizen is safe from arbitrary silencing.
Temokun added that censorship of political criticism has no place in a democracy, noting that Section 39 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression without interference. “No security agency, no matter how powerful, can suspend or delete those rights,” he said.
