Sowore Backs Down on Bid to Summon DSS Boss as Defamation Trial Takes New Twist

The ongoing criminal defamation trial involving activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, took a dramatic turn on Tuesday after he withdrew his earlier request to compel the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi, to testify in court.

Sowore’s decision was announced by his lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), during proceedings before Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja, bringing an unexpected twist to a legal battle that has continued to attract public attention.

Sowore is facing charges of criminal defamation, cyberstalking, and incitement following allegations that he described President Bola Tinubu as “a criminal” in posts published on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts. The charges were filed by the DSS, which accused the African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate of making false and defamatory claims against the President.

DSS Letter at Centre of Dispute

The controversy surrounding the proposed appearance of the DSS Director-General stemmed from a letter dated September 7, 2025, in which the DSS allegedly demanded that Sowore retract the disputed social media posts.

Earlier in the trial, Olumide-Fusika had sought a subpoena compelling Ajayi to appear and explain issues surrounding the letter. According to the defence, a DSS official, Uwem Davies, who authored the letter and testified as the second defence witness, had stated that he acted on instructions from the DSS Director-General.

The defence argued that Ajayi’s testimony was necessary to clarify the circumstances under which the letter was issued.

However, the plan to bring the DSS chief to court was abandoned after intense legal arguments erupted over the sudden appearance of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), in the case.

AGF’s Appearance Sparks Heated Exchanges

When the matter was called, Fagbemi announced his appearance for the prosecution, prompting an immediate reaction from the defence.

Olumide-Fusika noted that the day’s proceedings had been scheduled for the continuation of the defence case but observed that the prosecution team had been “reinforced” by the presence of both the Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN).

Justice Umar jokingly asked whether the defence counsel felt intimidated by the development.

“I am, my lord,” Olumide-Fusika replied lightheartedly, drawing laughter in the courtroom before confirming he was ready to proceed.

The defence lawyer then informed the court that his next witness was the DSS Director-General, who had been subpoenaed to testify.

Fagbemi Challenges DSS Boss Summons

In his first appearance in the matter, the Attorney-General questioned the legality and necessity of the subpoena issued against Ajayi.

Fagbemi argued that the summons was procedurally defective, insisting that a subpoena must be personally served on the individual concerned. He further contended that the subpoena and accompanying application failed to specify when the DSS chief was expected to appear before the court.

The AGF also maintained that the move amounted to an abuse of court process, pointing out that the disputed DSS letter had already been admitted as evidence on two separate occasions.

Advertisement

According to him, the document had been tendered both by the defence and through another witness, making the Director-General’s appearance unnecessary.

He stressed that while Sowore had the constitutional right to seek a subpoena, such powers were not unlimited.

“The matter concerns an official document, not the personal conduct of the DSS Director-General,” Fagbemi argued, adding that the defence appeared to be using the subpoena for purposes unrelated to the genuine resolution of the case.

He further suggested that the application was merely a tactic aimed at prolonging proceedings, especially since the DSS had already made one of its officials available to testify on behalf of the defence.

Defence Questions AGF’s Role

Olumide-Fusika, however, challenged the Attorney-General’s participation in the proceedings, arguing that proper notice should have been filed before taking over the prosecution from Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), who had previously handled the case.

The defence lawyer insisted that the prosecution was required to formally notify all parties if the AGF intended to assume control of the matter.

According to him, Fagbemi had entered the proceedings and made substantive arguments without first filing the necessary notice of takeover.

He urged the court to disregard the Attorney-General’s submissions and sought time to respond to legal authorities cited during the arguments.

Sudden Change of Position

Before the dispute could progress further, both senior lawyers held a brief private discussion inside the courtroom.

Following the exchange, Fagbemi informed the court that Olumide-Fusika had reconsidered his position and would no longer insist on the personal appearance of the DSS Director-General.

Instead, the defence agreed that another DSS official could appear to answer questions relating to the September 2025 letter.

With both parties now on the same page, they agreed that the arguments surrounding the subpoena had become unnecessary, eliminating the need for the court to deliver a ruling on the issue.

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case until August 3, when a DSS representative is expected to appear in response to the subpoena initially directed at the agency’s Director-General.