The prosecution in the trial of Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, on Friday faulted the insistence by the defence that the director-general of the State Security Service, Tosin Ajayi, must appear in person to testify as a defence witness.
The prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, argued that it was wrong for Mr Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, to insist that the SSS boss, must attend court in person to testify as a subpoenaed witness of the defence.
Mr Kehinde stated this at the resumed hearing of the case before Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division.
Mr Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, is being prosecuted by the SSS on allegations bordering on cybercrime.
The defendant was alleged to have, in August 2025, published posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, describing President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” and accusing him of lying about the level of corruption in the country.
Mr Kehinde, while presenting his argument, cited a Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR part 498, page 347 at 373.
He submitted that the apex court held that where a subpoena is directed to a named official, it will be absurd to insist that only the named officer is to appear in due compliance with the subpoena.
Mr Kehinde noted that the attorney-general of the federation attended court on July 28, leading the prosecution’s team, to make the same point that it was wrong for the defence to insist that the SSS chief must testify as its witness in person.
He said it was based on that understanding that parties agreed that an official of the SSS should be nominated to stand in for the boss.
The prosecutor told the court that, in fidelity to that understanding, an official of the SSS was designated for that purpose. He said the said official was present in court and was ready for the business of the day.
He added that the secret police chief had no personal interest in the case and only acted in an official capacity, restating that since the SSS had cases in the various divisions of the court, it was impossible to expect him to attend all proceedings.
“This case is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case on March 16, 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defence to argue that, at a point, it agreed that an official of the SSS should come, but now it is insisting on the DG alone. The decision as to who should attend court is at the discretion of the court, not that of the defence. An official of the SSS is competent to give evidence in place of the DG,” Mr Kehinde said.
Mr Olumide-Fusika claimed that the prosecution had repudiated the understanding by parties that an official of the SSS should attend court in the place of its boss by allegedly failing to produce the said official on the last date.
The lawyer argued that since the name on the subpoena and the hearing notice issued was that of the SSS chief, he must attend court in person.
He said the decision to issue a subpoena on the SSS boss in his personal capacity was necessitated by the fact that the second defence witness, Uwem Davies, an official of the SSS, had, while testifying, kept saying that it was only Mr Ajayi who could answer some of the questions put to him.
Mr Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until October 6 for ruling on whether or not Mr Ajayi can be compelled to appear in person and testify as a defence witness in respect of actions taken by the SSS.
(NAN)
Discussion about this post