UPDATED: Nigerian Govt Re-arraigns Sowore Over Posts Calling Tinubu Criminal

The Nigerian government on Monday re-arraigned Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, on cybercrime charges over his last year’s posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook calling President Bola Tinubu a “criminal.”

He was rearraigned before trial judge Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The State Security Service (SSS) had filed five counts against Mr Sowore and the social media giants, whose platforms Mr Sowore used to share the controversial posts.

The trio of Mr Sowore, Meta (parent company of Facebook) and X Inc. (parent company of X) were arraigned on 2 December 2025. They pleaded not guilty to all five counts and Mr Sowore was granted bail by the judge.

However, on Monday, the prosecution re-arraigned only Mr Sowore, following an amendment to the charges.

The amendment, filed on 5 December 2025, saw the two tech companies removed from the cybercrime charges as co-defendants and a reduction in the number of counts from five to two.s

After Mr Kehinde withdrew the earlier charge, replaced with the amended case, the judge ruled that “the names of Meta and X are hereby struck out from the case”.

It left Mr Sowore as the sole defendant.

The judge ordered that the amended charges be read to the activist.

Mr Sowore pleaded not guilty to the two counts.

The re-arraignment took a while before it happened on Monday, due to the defence team’s initial objection.

After the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), announced the amended charges, the lawyers for Meta and X, Paul Ihuoma and Christabel Njoku, confirmed that their clients’ name had been struck off the amended charges.

But Mr Sowore’s lawyer, Abubakar Marshal, while confirming service of the amended charges, said the re-arraignment should not be allowed due to the introduction of a “strange” social media handle “officialABAT” in the amended charges.

But after the lawyer conferred with Mr Sowore, they agreed to the rearraignment taking place. Mr Sowore denied the charges when read to him.

But after the plea was taken, the prosecution lawyer sought to commence trial immediately, but Mr Marshal objected.

Mr Marshal said the prosecution violated a provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) by failing to provide the defence with the prosecution’s list of proposed witnesses with their names and summaries of their testimonies.

He then requested at least seven days to go through the witness statements once served.

But the prosecution lawyer, Mr Kehinde, said the requirements raised by the defence lawyer only applied to the magistrates’ courts.

He also said the proposed witnesses were intelligence officers and that he could concede to an adjournment or a pause for the defence team to have adequate time to prepare for cross-examination after the first prosecution witness would have finished giving the evidence-in-chief.

However, the judge told Mr Kehinde that even if “it is an evil spirit that is listed as a witness” in a criminal trial, the summary of the witness’ statement must be attached to the charge.

He ordered the prosecution “to furnish the defendant with the necessary materials they need,” and adjourned the matter until 22 January.

Each of the two counts centred on Mr Sowore’s posts on X and on Facebook. Mr Sowore posted the message on both platforms on 25 and 26 August 2025.

The message read, “This criminal @officialABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is NO MORE corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”

The prosecution in the amended charges said Mr Sowore “knowingly or intentionally” sent a false message by means of a computer system or network on X and on Facebook with the intention of causing a breakdown of law and order in Nigeria or pose a threat to life.

The SSS said both counts constituted cyberstalking and violated Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

The prosecution listed an unnamed “Investigating Officer” as its witness, but added that it may choose to call “any other witness(es) as it may deem necessary to prove its case” during trial.

Among the prosecution’s exhibits are printouts of the defendant’s tweet on X; printouts of the defendant’s Facebook post; the complainant’s letters to X and Facebook; the defendant’s posts and tweets referenced in the letters to X and Facebook; printouts of comments and reactions on X; and a video recording of President Tinubu’s comments in Brazil.

The removal of the names of the social media giants from the charges on Monday was not surprising, with a PREMIUM TIMES review showing in the wake of the filing of the case in September last year that none of the original five counts accused the tech companies of any offence.

Gistmania review showed that all the allegations in each of the five counts were directed at Mr Sowore, who was accused by the prosecution of posting messages and publishing materials via his Facebook and X accounts to defame Mr Tinubu and cause fear and disturbance in Nigeria.

But none of the five counts disclosed any offence committed by Facebook’s and X’s parent companies, although they were listed as the second and third defendants alongside Mr Sowore, who was the first defendant.

The absence of any allegations against Facebook or X in the charges left the platforms technically with nothing to defend in the case.

In the wake of Mr Sowore’s August 2025 posts, the SSS wrote to X, Facebook and Mr Sowore to delete the posts or face consequences, with the government maintaining that the posts were false, capable of causing public disorder, and damaging the president’s reputation.

But the demand for the removal of the posts was rebuffed, prompting the SSS to charge the trio with cybercrime.

The SSS eventually arrainged Mr Sowore alongside Meta and X Incorp on 2 December 2025, after failed initial attempts. They pleaded not guilty to the initial five counts. The court granted Mr Sowore bail on self-recognisance, despite the prosecution’s opposition.