A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday refused to admit an uncertified court document presented by human rights activist and African Action Congress presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, during his defence in an alleged criminal defamation case filed by the Department of State Services, DSS. The case is linked to social media posts in which Sowore allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a criminal.
The disputed document was introduced through the third defence witness, Wayne Elijah, who told the court he received it while serving as a member of Sowore’s former legal team. He explained that the prosecution had served the document on him during his time as one of the defendant’s lawyers.
The prosecution opposed the move, arguing that the document formed part of court records and could only be accepted if it was the original copy or a Certified True Copy. It maintained that the defence was attempting to rely on an ordinary photocopy, which did not meet the legal requirement for admissibility.
After listening to both sides, Justice Mohammed Umar agreed with the objection and declined to admit the document into evidence. The judge held that since the document had been in the custody of counsel, there was no assurance that it had remained unchanged, making certification necessary before it could be accepted by the court.
During cross-examination, Elijah admitted that he was present in court while the second defence witness testified earlier. He, however, explained that he was not seated in the courtroom throughout the proceedings and said security camera footage could confirm that he moved in and out of the courtroom.
Earlier in the hearing, the second defence witness, Uwem Davies, a principal officer in the DSS General Services Department, testified that he wrote a letter directing Sowore to remove the social media posts based on instructions from the Director-General of the DSS. He said the communication, dated January 22, was the only letter he personally authored requesting the removal of the posts because they were considered capable of creating tension in the country.
Davies was later shown another letter dated September 7, 2025, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of Meta. Although the document carried his name, he informed the court that it was written by another DSS officer, B. Bamigboye, who has since retired from the service.
The witness also said he never met or communicated directly with Sowore before issuing the January letter, explaining that he merely carried out instructions from the DSS leadership. When asked whether he or the DSS Director-General supported President Tinubu politically, Davies replied that he did not know and insisted his actions were strictly official. He also stated that he did not consult any supporters of the President before writing the letter.
Following his testimony, Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), informed the court that he might need to request a subpoena compelling the DSS Director-General to appear because the witness could not answer several questions raised during the proceedings.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, Davies maintained that every step he took in the matter was performed as part of his official responsibilities. He confirmed that the subpoena requiring his appearance was first served on the DSS before it was assigned to him. He also disclosed that Bamigboye prepared another letter to X Corp on behalf of the DSS Director-General regarding the same matter and that he had copies of both the letter and the subpoena issued to Bamigboye.
The prosecution later attempted to tender those documents as evidence, but the defence objected. Justice Umar upheld the objection and refused their admission.
Although the defence informed the court that it still intended to call about 20 more witnesses, it requested more time to prepare an application seeking a subpoena for the DSS Director-General. The defence also disclosed that efforts to serve a subpoena on the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, had not been successful because court bailiffs were unable to complete the service.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case until July 28 for the continuation of the defence.