The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, fixed January 22 for the commencement of trial of Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, over an alleged false claim against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after Sowore was arraigned on a two-count amended charge filed by the Department of State Services (DSS), to which he pleaded not guilty.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in the amended charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, filed on December 5, Sowore is the sole defendant.
Although Sowore, X Inc. (formerly Twitter) and Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook) were named as first, second and third defendants in the earlier charge, the DSS dropped X and Meta from the amended charge.
In the first count, the DSS alleged that Sowore, on or about August 25, 2025, knowingly sent a message via a computer system or network through his verified X handle, @YeleSowore.
According to the charge, Sowore posted the message: “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 message, which Sowore knew to be false, was posted with the intent to cause a breakdown of law and order in Nigeria or pose a threat to life.
The offence is said to be contrary to Section 24(1)(b) and punishable under Sections 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
At the proceedings, prosecuting counsel, M. B. Kehinde, applied for the removal of the names of the second and third defendants from the charge, and Justice Umar accordingly struck out X and Facebook from the case.
Kehinde then requested that the amended charge be read to Sowore. Defence counsel, Marshal Abubakar, did not oppose the application, and the charge was read. Sowore thereafter pleaded not guilty to the two counts.
Abubakar subsequently applied that Sowore be allowed to continue to enjoy the bail earlier granted to him, a request the court granted.
Following the plea, the DSS informed the court that its prosecution witness was in court and that it was ready to proceed with trial. However, Abubakar objected, stating that the defence was not ready to proceed.
He argued that although the proof of evidence listed witnesses, no names or depositions were attached, in violation of Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution.
Abubakar contended that the failure to frontload the names and depositions of witnesses deprived the defendant of adequate facilities to prepare his defence.
“The depositions of the witnesses and the list of witnesses must be frontloaded, and they have failed to do this. The witnesses are unknown to us and unknown to law,” he submitted.
He relied on Section 379(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, as well as two Supreme Court decisions, urging the court to grant time for the defence to prepare.
In response, Kehinde disagreed, arguing that the defence’s reliance on the cited provisions was misconceived and unfounded.
He submitted that Section 36(6) of the Constitution does not require the prosecution to disclose the names of witnesses before trial.
Kehinde added that the defence could request a stand-down or adjournment after the prosecution witness had testified in order to cross-examine.
He described the objection as a tactic to delay the proceedings and urged the court to discountenance it in the interest of expeditious justice.
