Human rights activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, appeared in the Federal High Court in Abuja today to face amended criminal charges brought by the Department of State Services (DSS) alleging that he published false and defamatory social media posts about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Abuja, Nigeria — January 19, 2026
The amended charges stem from posts Sowore made on his official X and Facebook accounts in August 2025, in which he referred to President Tinubu as “a criminal” and accused him of lying about levels of corruption in Nigeria — statements the prosecution maintains were false and intended to cause public disorder.
Initially, the DSS filed a five-count charge against Sowore on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024, and sections of the Criminal Code Act, including defamation, spreading false information and incitement.
However, in an amended charge sheet dated December 4, 2025, the Federal Government has reduced the number of counts and removed social media companies X (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) as co-defendants, making Sowore the sole defendant. The revised charges now focus on two counts alleging that his posts were knowingly false and carried the potential to disrupt public peace.
During today’s proceedings, Sowore appeared before Justice Mohammed Umar. The court is expected to schedule the next hearing for the commencement of trial later in the year. Justice Umar had previously warned that Sowore’s bail could be revoked if he continued to make comments deemed to threaten national security — a ruling tied to earlier bail conditions after his initial arraignment.
Sowore’s legal team has criticized the charges as an attempt to stifle free expression and dissent, framing the case as a broader issue of press freedom and the protection of civil liberties in Nigeria — arguments they are expected to develop as the matter proceeds.
The case continues to draw attention from civil society and media rights groups, who argue that the application of cybercrime and defamation laws should not undermine democratic discourse. The trial’s outcome may have significant implications for online speech and political criticism in the country.
