Failure to serve charges stalls Sowore’s arraignment in Tinubu ‘defamation’ case

The arraignment of Omoyele Sowore over allegations of defaming President Bola Tinubu was stalled owing to the failure of the prosecution to serve the defendants with the charges.

The Department of State Services (DSS) filed a five-count charge before a federal high court in Abuja.

X Corp, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, and Meta (Facebook) Inc. were also joined as defendants in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025 and filed on September 23.

Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters and former presidential candidate, had on August 25 described Tinubu as a “criminal” while reacting to the president’s comments on corruption during a recent trip to Brazil.

The DSS had earlier written to X, demanding the urgent deactivation of Sowore’s verified account.

Also, in a letter dated September 7, and signed by Uwem Davies on behalf of Adeola Ajayi, the director-general of the DSS, the secret police asked Sowore to retract his post on X and tender a public apology within one week.

The service ordered Sowore to retract the statement with the same prominence on X, publish apologies in at least two national newspapers and two television stations, and submit a formal representation to its headquarters in Abuja or via email.

Sowore had refused, prompting the DSS to file a criminal charge against him, with September 30 fixed for arraignment.

‘NOT BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED’

However, at the court session on Tuesday, Marshal Abubakar, counsel to Sowore, objected to his client taking a plea. Abubakar said the defendant had not been served with the charge.

He added that in a joint criminal matter, all the parties in the case must be in court or represented by counsel before jurisdiction can be activated. He therefore urged the court to ask the prosecution to do the needful.

Responding, M.B. Abubakar, prosecution counsel, said all the defendants in the matter have been served and proof of service is in the court’s record.

However, after going through the court’s records, Umar Muhammad, presiding judge, noted that the first defendant had not been personally served, while the two other defendants were served electronically (via email).

The prosecution then made an oral application for the first defendant to be served in court, to which defence counsel did not object.

Having been served, the prosecution asked for the matter to continue, but Sowore’s lawyer said the law provides for a minimum of three days after serving an accused person before an arraignment can be made.

The judge agreed with him and said an adjournment would be granted to give the defendant room to go through the charge before entering his plea.

Mofeso Oyetibo, counsel to the third defendant (Meta), informed the court that they had just been served a copy of the charge in court.

He noted that he could not see any count against the third defendant, wondering why they were included.

The case was subsequently adjourned to October 27.