A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected move by the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore to tender an uncertified document in support of his defence in his ongoing trial for alleged criminal defamation.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) in relation to alleged criminal defamation arising from claims that he referred to President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in posts made on his official X and Facebook accounts.
In the course of proceedings on Wednesday, Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN) applied to tender, through the third defence witness (DW3), Wayne Chikezie Elijah, a copy of court documents, which the witness claimed he onced received on behalf of the defendant.
Elijah, led in evidence by Olumide-Fusika, told the court that he was a member of the defendant’s former legal team, during which he accepted service of some court documents, from the prosecution, on the defendant’s behalf.
On the prompting of the defence lawyer, Elijah brought out a copy of the document, which Olumide-Fusika then, applied to tender in evidence; a move prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) objected to.
Kehinde argued that the document, which the defence sought to tender is a court document, which could only be admitted if it is a certified true copy (CTC) or the original copy.
He noted that in this case, what Olumide-Fusika applied to tender was just a mere photocopy of the actual document, which he argued, was inadmissible.
Ruling, Justice Mohammed Umar overruled Olumide-Fusika’s argument that it was a court document that emelanated from the prosecution and so, required no certification.
Justice Umar said: “The document is coming from the custody of a counsel, who claimed to be a counsel in the matter before. The reason for certification is to be sure the document has not been tampered with.
“Having been in the custody of the said counsel, how is the court sure that the document has not been tampered with? The document is rejected and marked as such,” the judge said.
Under cross examination by Kehinde, Elijah confirmed that he was present in the courtroom while the second defence witness (DW2) testified earlier in the proceedings on Wednesday.
Elijah said: “My lord, I was in and out of the courtroom. The CCTV of the court can confirm that I was indeed in an out of them courtroom.”
Earlier while being led in evidence by Olumide-Fusika, DW2, Uwem Davies, an official of the DSS, who featured as a subpoenaed witness, said he is Principal Officer, General Services at the DSS.
Davies said he was subpoenaed to testify in the case at the instance of the defendant. He confirmed writing, upon the directive of the Director General of the DSS, a letter, requesting the defendant to take down his post on his X and Facebook platforms because it was generating tension in the society.
The witness said the letter, dated January 22 was the only letter he wrote, asking the defendant to retract what he had posted on his social media handle regarding President Bola Tinubu.
When shown a letter, dated September 7, 2025, addressed to the MD,CEO of Meta, the parent body of Facebook, the witness said the letter contained his name, but was not authored by him.
He said one B. Bamigboye, who was also subpoenaed, was his colleague in the same department, but has since retired.
The witness said he did not interface with Sowore before writing the defendant, but acted on the directive of the DG of the DSS.
On whether the DG, DSS and himself were supporters of President Tinubu in view of their claim that Sowore’s post infuriated a number of the President’s supporters, the witness said he did not know.
He insisted that as a lawyer in the employment of the DSS, he was instructed by the DG of the DSS to write Sowore to retract his alleged false post about the President.
On whether he interacted with the supporters of the President before writing the letter, Davies said he did not, but did the letter as directed by his employer.
At that point, Fusika told the court that he would have no option than to subpoena the DG of the DSS, because Davies has been unable to answer his questions the way he desired.
Under cross examination by Kehinde, Davies said all he did in respect of the case was in his official capacity, not personal capacity.
He said the subpoena, which he tendered earlier, was served on the service (DSS) and that the subpoena was passed on to me in his official capacity.
The witness confirmed that himself and B. Bamigbose worked in the same department, but that Bamigboye has retired from service and his present location is unknown to his employer.
He said Bamigboye authored the letter to Chairman/CEO X Corp on behalf of the DG, DSS in respect of this case, adding that Bamigboye authored the letter in his official capacity just as he did his own.
Davies Slsaid he has a copy of the letter with him, along with a copy of the subpoena served on Bamigboye.
Kehinde then applied to tender both documents in evidence, but Olumide-Fusika objected, an objection the judge upheld.
Although Olumide-Fusika told the court that he has 20 witnesses to call, he however, applied for adjornment to enable him prepare his application for the issuance of a subpoena on the DG, DSS.
Olumide-Fusika said he has also applied that a subpoena be issued on the spokesman to President Tinubu, Bayo Onanuga, but was told by the court’s Bailiffs that they have been unable to serve Onanuga with the subpoena.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned till July 28 for the continuation of defence.
