• …court frowns at defendant using his phone during proceedings

Trial opened on Thursday with the prosecution calling its first witness in the criminal defamation and cybercrime case against politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore.

The witness, Cyril Nosike, an official of the Department of State Services (DSS), told the court that the false claim about President Bola Tinubu by Sowore, in which he called the president a criminal, generated tension and threatened public safety.

Sowore is being prosecuted by the DSS for allegedly making a false claim against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as a criminal in a post he made on his X and Facebook accounts.

The defendant is accused of contravening the provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024

Nosike, who was led in evidence by prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), said he is stationed at the Cyber Space Monitoring Centre of the DSS and that his duty includes monitoring the cyber space for 24 hours, night and day.

The witness said in the course of his duty on August 26, 2025, at the Cyber Space Monitoring Centre, he detected and monitored a post by the defendant (Sowore) through his X platform.

He said the post referenced as such, “This criminal @OficialABAT, the X handle of the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,” in which Sowore said to “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 witness said that when he came across the video, which Sowore allegedly posted and under which the defendant wrote the statement, he (the witness) downloaded it and saved it on a flash drive and marked it XYZ.

When shown the flash drive and a certificate of compliance, the witness identified them as the items he referred to, following which the prosecuting lawyer applied to tender them in evidence.

Defence lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, said he would reserve his objection, which he intends to raise at the appropriate time.

Justice Mohammed Umar proceeded to admit the flash drive and the certificate into evidence.

Kehinde then applied that the flash drive be played in the open court for everyone to see, a request the judge granted, following which the video on the flash drive was played.

The video showed President Tinubu speaking about the achievements of his administration and encouraged Brazilian businesses to invest in Nigeria because there is now a conducive business environment, where there is no corruption.

Shortly after the video was played, Kehinde noticed that Sowore, who stood in the dock, was using his mobile phone in the course of the court proceedings and complained to the judge.

Although Sowore made an attempt to deny using his phone, Justice Umar frowned at the development, saying that it was wrong for a defendant to be using his phone while the court was sitting.

The judge directed an official of the court to retrieve the phone from the defendant and hand it to his lawyer.

Sowore, however, refused to hand the phone to the female court, who moved close to him in the dock to retrieve the phone. He told the court official, “Don’t touch my phone.”

He then sought the court’s permission to hand the phone to his lawyer by himself, which the court granted, following which he walked off the dock and handed the phone to his lawyer, who was standing a few meters away.

The judge then directed Abubakar to place the phone on top of the table in front of the court.

At the resumption of his testimony, the witness said he made a screenshot of the attendant reactions of people to Sowore’s post of Tinubu’s video.

He said seeing the reactions to Sowore’s post, the DSS wrote a letter officially to the owners of the X platform and Facebook (Meta) through their email addresses.

The witness said the letters were for the two social media platforms to take down the post by Sowore, “Considering that the statement on that post was generating tension.”

Nosike said the DSS also sent an official letter to the defendant through his lawyers, who acknowledged receipt of the letter. He said the letter was to demand that Sowore retract the inciting post that he made.

He added that even though the letter to him was a confidential document, Sowore posted a screenshot of the letter on his Facebook platform.

The witness added, “As expected, the letter (which Sowore posted on Facebook) attracted reactions from Nigerians both far and wide.

And, the reactions to that letter were disparaging to the DSS and painted the service in a bad light.

Kehinde proceeded to tender copies of the letters referred to by the witness and his screenshots of the reactions to Sowore’s posts, which the court admitted in evidence.

The witness told the court that Sowore’s inciting posts complicate the work of security agencies like the DSS.

He said, “We have officers and men who have sworn on oath to put themselves on the line for the security and stability of this country.

“Such inciting posts that generate tension, make our work more difficult, and we take such issues very seriously,” the witness said.

At the conclusion of his evidence in chief, the court called on Sowore’s lawyer to proceed to cross-examine the witness.

But, in response, Abubakar begged the court for time to enable him study the witness’ testimony before he could cross-examine Nosike.

Although Kehinde objected to the adjournment sought by the defence, arguing that there was no basis for that, the judge agreed to adjourn the case, but rejected Abubakar’s request for a date in February.

Justice Umar adjourned till January 27 for cross-examination and continuation of the hearing.

Earlier in the proceedings, Abubakar had made efforts to frustrate the planned commencement of the trial in the case.

Abubakar claimed that the prosecution did not serve him the summary of witnesses’ testimonies and other relevant materials as ordered by the court on the last adjourned date.

He said in view of the alleged failure of the prosecution to comply with the court’s order, the defence has filed a motion for the striking out of the charge.

But, when the judge asked an official of the court to hand Abubakar a copy of the proof of service, which Kehinde earlier submitted to the court, the defence lawyer glanced at the documents and claimed that they were forged.

He further claimed that there was a disparity in the dates on the documents.

But, when his attention was drawn to the fact that the documents emanated from the court, he then admitted service and apologised to both the prosecution and the court, following which the judge ordered the prosecution to call its first witness.