Free Speech on Trial: Sowore Blasts DSS over “Embarrassing” Handle Confusion

Human rights activist Omoyele Sowore and his legal team delivered a scathing critique of the Department of State Services (DSS) on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, following a chaotic day in court. Sowore, who is on trial for cyberstalking after referring to President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in an August 2025 social media post, accused the DSS of lacking basic digital literacy regarding the President’s online presence.

The “Handle” Blunder: @OfficialADJT vs. The Presidency

The core of Sowore’s criticism centered on the specific X (formerly Twitter) account the DSS is attempting to use as a basis for its prosecution.

• Sowore’s Revelation: Sowore claimed the handle the DSS cited in court was created in 2012 by a user known as OfficialADJT. He argued that the DSS witness confused a personal handle from Tinubu’s time in Lagos with his current official presidential accounts (such as @officialABAT or @NGRPresident).
• The Quote: “That is how dumb these DSS guys are… The handle they are prosecuting in court today was established in 2012 by OfficialADJT. Our playboy DSS guy doesn’t know anything and he was embarrassed.”
• The Fact Check: During cross-examination, DSS witness Cyril Nosike maintained that @officialABAT was the account in question at the time of the post, though he appeared unable to answer detailed technical questions about the handle’s history.

The Court Rejects Sowore’s Evidence

While the activist used the court steps to claim a “moral victory,” the actual legal rulings on Wednesday were a blow to the defense. Justice Mohammed Umar rejected two major sets of documents:

1. Corruption Reports: Printouts detailing the dismissal of 115 DSS officials for misconduct and EFCC corruption charges against five former governors.
2. Tinubu’s Past Rhetoric: Documents allegedly showing that in 2011, Tinubu used disparaging language (calling then-President Goodluck Jonathan a “drunkard”) to argue that calling a leader names is a established political practice.

• The Reason: The judge ruled that because the DSS witness claimed no knowledge of these documents, they could not be tendered through him and must wait until the defense opens its own case.

Livestreaming and “Digital Transparency”

Sowore and his lead counsel, Abubakar Marshal, called for the trial to be livestreamed to the world, citing the 2015 Nnamdi Kanu trial as a precedent for digital transparency in high-stakes political cases.

• Contempt Warning: The request for transparency was met with a stern warning from Justice Umar, who expressed “grave concern” over reports that a member of the defense team had allegedly live-streamed a previous session without authorization. The judge described the act as potential contempt of court and vowed to order a security investigation.+1
• The Defense View: Marshal argued that “public power is not personal to the occupier” and that Nigerians have a constitutional right to witness a trial that will “shape the future of free speech.”

Timeline of the Sowore Cybercrime Case