•DSS operatives and Sowore
There was a dramatic development on Monday at the Federal High Court in Abuja as counsel to the Department of State Services (DSS), Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, denied knowledge of widely reported statements that the agency had directed him to seek an adjournment of the ongoing trial of human rights activist and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, until after the 2027 presidential election.
Kehinde made the denial during the resumed trial of the alleged cyberbullying charge filed against Sowore by the Department of State Service ( DSS ) before Justice Umar Mohammed, reports Daily Independent.
The denial came despite extensive media reports on August 30 that the DSS had directed its counsel to seek an adjournment of the case until after the 2027 election, reportedly to enable Sowore to participate fully in the electoral process.
However, during the proceedings, Sowore’s lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, told the court that he was surprised that the DSS appeared determined to continue the prosecution despite earlier reports that the agency had sought to suspend the case until after the 2027 election.
Olumide-Fusika also drew the court’s attention to media reports and press statements allegedly issued by the DSS, indicating that the service had instructed its lawyers to seek an adjournment of the case until after the election.
He sought to tender copies of the publications before the court, arguing that the reports could explain why the expected witness was absent.
The counsel argued that coming to court without the witness, while apparently relying on a different position previously publicised, could amount to an attempt to catch the defence unprepared.
“My Lord, the witness is not here,” he said, asking the court to grant an adjournment to enable the defence to obtain a fresh hearing notice and ensure that the witness was brought before the court.
He added that nobody was above the law and that the defence would make the necessary application if the witness continued to refuse to appear.
However, the prosecution counsel objected to the defence’s reliance on social media and media reports, arguing that the document being referred to had not been served on him and that he was unaware of its contents.
He questioned the propriety of opposing counsel relying on alleged communications between the DSS and its lawyers as reported on social media.
The prosecution counsel urged the court to discontinue consideration of the publication, arguing that court proceedings should not be conducted through social media.
“Litigations are not put on social media. We are past that level in this country,” he told the court.
Fusika, however, maintained that the publications were relevant to the circumstances surrounding the witness’s absence and insisted that the defence had not fabricated the information.
The defence counsel also expressed concern over the absence of the subpoenaed witness, arguing that the prosecution had previously undertaken to provide an official who could testify on behalf of the DSS.
He told the court that an understanding had earlier been reached that if the Director-General was unable to appear, another competent officer would be provided to testify.
He argued that the undertaking made before the court ought to be respected, particularly when it involved counsel representing the federal government.
According to him, “Even if he’s not the Attorney-General of the Federation, if it’s just between two lawyers, once your Lordship is aware that this is the understanding, as honourable members of this profession, we should expect that that understanding should be fulfilled.”
The case was thereafter adjourned to Friday, October 2, 2026.
