A Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN, Akinlolu Kehinde has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the persistent demand by Omoyele Sowore that the Director General of the Department of State Services (DG, DSS), Tosin Ajayi must appear in person to testify as a witness in the Cyberbullying President Bola Tinubu charges against him is an act of absurdity.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the DSS over his August 2025 published posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, describing President Tinubu as a “criminal” and accusing him of lying about the level of corruption in the country.
At Friday’s hearing, prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) argued that it was wrong for Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN) to insist that the DG, DSS must attend court in person to testify as a subpoenaed witness of the defence.
In support of his position, Kehinde SAN cited a Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR part 498, page 347 at 373. – where it was 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.
Kehinde recalled that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) attended court on July 28, 2026, leading the prosecution’s team, to make the same point that it was wrong for Sowore to insist that the DG, DSS must testify as its witness in person.
He said it was based on that understanding that parties agreed that an official of the DSS should be nominated to stand in for the DG, DSS.
The prosecuting lawyer told the court that, in fidelity to that understanding, an official of the DSS 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 DSS boss has no personal interest in this case and only acted in an official capacity.
He stressed that since the DSS has cases in the various divisions of the FHC, it was practically impossible to expect the DG to attend all proceedings.
Kehinde said: “This is a case is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case since 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 DSS 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 DSS is competent to give evidence in place of the DG,” Kehinde said.
Earlier, Olumide-Fusika had claimed that the prosecution has repudiated the understanding by parties that an official of the DSS should attend court in the place of its DG by allegedly failing to produce the said official on the last date.
Olumide-Fusika argued that since the name on the subpoena and the hearing notice issued was that of the DG, he must attend court in person.
He said the decision to issue a subpoena on the DG, DSS in his personal capacity was necessitated by the fact that the second defence witness, Uwem Davies (an official of the DSS) had, while testifying, kept saying that it was the only DG who could answer some of the questions put to him.
Justice Mohammed Garba Umar has fixed October 6 for ruling on whether or not the DG, DSS could be compelled to appear in person and testify as a defence witness in respect of actions taken by the agency.
