…Court Summons Any Agency Official For August 3
The presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, Omoyele Sowore, has withdrawn his insistence that the Director-General of the State Security Service, Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, must personally appear before the Federal High Court in Abuja to testify in his ongoing trial.
Sowore’s legal team agreed that another competent official of the SSS could appear before the court to answer questions relating to a letter dated September 7, 2025, which demanded the removal of social media posts in which Sowore allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”
Justice Mohammed Garba Umar subsequently adjourned the case until August 3, 2026, for an official of the SSS to appear in relation to the subpoena earlier directed at the agency’s Director-General.
Sowore is being prosecuted over posts made on his official X and Facebook accounts following remarks by Tinubu during an official visit to Brazil that his administration had ended corruption in Nigeria.
The SSS subsequently wrote to Sowore and the social media platforms involved, demanding the removal of the posts. Sowore declined to comply, maintaining that his statements were protected by his constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Sowore’s lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, had indicated at the previous hearing on July 22 that the defence would seek a subpoena compelling Ajayi to appear and produce the September 7, 2025 letter.
The decision followed the testimony of an SSS official, Uwem Davies, who appeared as the second defence witness under subpoena.
Davies, who authored the letter, reportedly told the court that he acted on the instructions of the SSS Director-General when he demanded the removal of Sowore’s posts.
Olumide-Fusika argued that since Davies had attributed the instruction to Ajayi and was allegedly unable to adequately answer some questions concerning the letter, it was necessary for the SSS chief to appear and clarify the circumstances surrounding it.
However, when proceedings resumed on Tuesday, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, appeared in the case for the first time and challenged the competence of the subpoena issued against Ajayi.
Fagbemi argued that the invitation to the SSS Director-General amounted to an abuse of the court’s process and urged the court to set it aside.
The AGF disputed the claim that the subpoena had been personally served on Ajayi, maintaining that a court process directed at an individual ought to be served personally on that person.
The court’s records, however, showed that the subpoena had been served on the Director of Legal Services of the SSS. Fagbemi nevertheless argued that service on the agency’s legal director did not amount to personal service on Ajayi.
He also pointed out that the application for the subpoena and the writ subsequently issued did not state the specific date on which the SSS Director-General was expected to appear before the court.
Fagbemi further argued that the September 7, 2025 letter which the defence wanted Ajayi to produce and answer questions on had already been tendered and admitted in evidence twice.
“As a matter of record, this document has been tendered and marked Exhibit D. It was also tendered as Exhibit DWC on July 22, 2026. It was tendered by the defendant,” the AGF told the court.
According to him, although a defendant has the right to seek a subpoena against any person whose evidence may assist the defence, that right is not without limitations.
Fagbemi maintained that the disputed letter was an official document authored by Davies in the course of his duties and that the SSS Director-General was not being summoned over any personal allegation against him.
“The DG of the SSS is not being subpoenaed to appear in his personal capacity. He is being subpoenaed in his official capacity to give evidence in respect of an official letter. It is not about his person or any allegations against him. So, there are limits,” he argued.
The AGF urged the court to discharge the subpoena and direct Sowore to proceed with the remaining part of his defence, alleging that the summons was being used for an indirect and improper purpose rather than to advance a genuine evidential issue.
Responding, Olumide-Fusika challenged Fagbemi’s appearance in the case without prior notice to the defence.
The senior lawyer acknowledged the constitutional powers of the AGF to intervene in or take over a federal criminal prosecution but argued that the process must be formally and properly carried out.
He maintained that if Fagbemi intended to take over the prosecution from the lawyer who had previously handled the case, he ought to have filed and served the appropriate notice.
“What the AGF has done today is to appear and make submissions. We are entitled to be notified that he is taking over the prosecution of the case from the lawyer who filed the charge and has been appearing,” Olumide-Fusika said.
He initially sought an adjournment to respond to a legal authority cited by Fagbemi and asked the court to disregard the AGF’s arguments on the ground that he had not filed a proper notice of takeover.
Before the lawyers could agree on a date for the defence to respond, Fagbemi beckoned to Olumide-Fusika, and the two senior lawyers briefly conferred inside the courtroom.
Following their discussion, Fagbemi informed the court that the defence had reconsidered its position and would no longer insist that Ajayi must appear personally.
The parties agreed that another appropriate SSS official could attend court to answer the questions raised by the defence concerning the September 7, 2025 letter.
Fagbemi and Olumide-Fusika consequently informed the court that the new agreement had overtaken their earlier arguments and that it was no longer necessary for Justice Umar to deliver a ruling on the AGF’s application challenging the subpoena.
Justice Umar thereafter adjourned proceedings until August 3 for an official of the SSS to appear before the court and address the issues arising from the letter.
Sowore has pleaded not guilty to the charges. The court had earlier dismissed his no-case submission and directed him to open his defence.
