Share!
An Abuja Federal High Court on Monday struck out Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation (formerly Twitter) from the cyberstalking case instituted by the Federal Government against activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore.
The development followed the prosecution’s decision to amend the charge, effectively leaving Sowore as the sole defendant in the matter.
Sowore was arraigned on December 2nd, 2025, on a cybercrime charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, alongside Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation.
The prosecution had alleged that Sowore, through posts on his verified social media accounts, published false statements against President Bola Tinubu, describing him as a “criminal.”
At the resumed hearing before Justice Umar, lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, informed the court that an amended charge filed on December 5th, 2025, was ready to be read, without objections from the defence.
The prosecution subsequently withdrew the earlier charge and formally applied that the names of the second and third defendants—Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation—be struck out.
Justice Umar granted the application and struck out both companies from the case.
The amended charge alleges that Sowore, on or about August 25, 2025, knowingly or intentionally sent a message via his verified X handle, @YeleSowore, which the prosecution claims was false and capable of causing a breakdown of law and order.
According to the charge, Sowore posted, “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!”
Related News
Afternoon Recap: FIFA slams AFCON final chaos, 2026 overseas scholarships, Lagos fallen tanker, other top stories
Tinubu mourns Kano businessman Abdulaziz
Tinubu orders probe into killing of woman, six children in Kano
The prosecution alleged that the post amounted to cyberstalking, contrary to Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
When the charge was read, Sowore pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution applied to proceed with trial and sought to present its first witness, a move opposed by defence counsel, Marshal Abubakar.
Abubakar argued that the prosecution was not ready for trial, contending that the amended charge was defective for failing to disclose the identity of any prosecution witness or attach witness statements.
Relying on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, he argued that the omission violated Sowore’s right to fair hearing, insisting that the defence could not adequately prepare without knowing the witnesses and evidence to be relied upon.
“The witness sought to be called is unknown to the defence and, indeed, unknown to the court,” Abubakar said.
Responding, Kehinde dismissed the objection as speculative, arguing that Section 36(6) of the Constitution does not mandate the prosecution to disclose the identity of a witness before calling him to testify.
He added that the defence was at liberty to seek an adjournment to enable cross-examination, noting that the prosecution intended to call only one witness, who was already in court.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Umar directed the prosecution to provide the defence with the witness statement and adjourned the matter to Thursday, January 22nd, 2026, for definite hearing
No related posts.
