Court Rejects Uncertified Document in Sowore Defamation Case

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an attempt by Omoyele Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, to submit an uncertified court document as part of his defense in an ongoing defamation trial. Sowore faces prosecution by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly labeling President Bola Tinubu a "criminal" in social media posts.

During Wednesday's proceedings, Sowore’s legal representative, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), sought to introduce the document through a witness, Wayne Elijah, who claimed to have accepted it on behalf of Sowore while serving on his prior legal team. Elijah testified that he received the document from the prosecution.

However, the prosecution, led by Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), objected, asserting that the document could only be accepted as evidence if it was either the original or a Certified True Copy. The defense’s photocopy of the document was deemed inadmissible.

Justice Mohammed Umar upheld the objection, stating, “The document is coming from the custody of a counsel who claimed to be counsel in this matter. The reason for certification is to ensure the document has not been tampered with." The judge subsequently rejected the document and marked it as such.

Under cross-examination, Elijah acknowledged he was in the courtroom when another defense witness testified but maintained he was “in and out” during the proceedings. He suggested that the court’s CCTV footage could confirm his claims.

Earlier, the second defense witness, Uwem Davies, a principal officer within the DSS, testified under subpoena that he had sent a letter to Sowore instructing him to retract his posts about President Tinubu. He stated that the letter, dated January 22, was the sole correspondence he authored regarding the matter, as the posts were allegedly causing public unrest.

When presented with another letter dated September 7, 2025, addressed to Meta's CEO, Davies admitted he did not write it, clarifying that a colleague had done so. He maintained that he acted solely on directives from the DSS Director-General and had no prior interaction with Sowore.

In response to questions about his or the Director-General's political affiliations, Davies insisted he did not know and had not consulted any of the President's supporters before issuing the letter.

Following this testimony, Olumide-Fusika indicated the possibility of subpoenaing the DSS Director-General, citing that Davies was unable to answer certain critical questions. The prosecution's attempts to introduce additional documents related to the case were similarly met with defense objections, which were upheld by Justice Umar.

Despite the defense's intention to call 20 additional witnesses, Olumide-Fusika requested an adjournment to prepare a subpoena application for the DSS Director-General. The court has been adjourned until July 28 for the continuation of the defense.

This trial highlights ongoing tensions surrounding freedom of expression and political discourse in Nigeria, as Sowore's case unfolds amidst broader discussions on media and governmental accountability.