The Department of State Services has re-arraigned activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore before a Federal High Court in Abuja over an alleged offensive social media post about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, after the Federal Government quietly withdrew related charges against global tech giants Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation.

The move marks a significant shift in a case that had initially drawn attention for its attempt to drag two of the world’s biggest social media companies into a Nigerian criminal prosecution. With the amended charge now before the court, Sowore stands as the sole defendant in a matter that is fast becoming a test of the country’s cybercrime law and its limits on political speech online.

Sowore was first arraigned in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, where he appeared alongside Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and X Corporation, the owner of the microblogging platform formerly known as Twitter. Prosecutors had alleged that the activist used his verified X account to disseminate a message they described as false, inflammatory and capable of undermining public order.

At the latest sitting before Justice Umar, lead prosecution counsel Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, informed the court that the Federal Government had filed an amended charge. The revised document removed Meta and X from the list of defendants, leaving only Sowore to face the cybercrime allegations.

Kehinde formally applied for the earlier charge to be withdrawn and for the names of Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation to be struck out. The court granted the application, effectively ending, at least for now, the government’s attempt to hold the social media companies criminally liable for content posted by a Nigerian user.

The amended charge centres on a post allegedly made by Sowore on or about August 25, 2025, via his verified X handle, @YeleSowore. In the post, he is quoted as writing: “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!”

Prosecutors contend that the statement was not only false but also calculated to cause a breakdown of law and order. They argue that the post amounts to cyberstalking under Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, a law that has increasingly been invoked in politically sensitive cases involving online speech.

When the amended charge was read in open court, Sowore pleaded not guilty. The plea set the stage for a fresh round of legal arguments, this time focused less on the involvement of multinational tech firms and more squarely on the activist’s rights, the scope of the cybercrime law and the boundaries of criticism of public officials.

Following the plea, the prosecution signalled its readiness to proceed immediately to trial and sought to call its first witness. Defence counsel Marshal Abubakar objected, insisting that the prosecution was not properly prepared and that the amended charge itself was defective.

Abubakar argued that the prosecution had failed to disclose the identity of its proposed witness or to serve the defence with any witness statements. He maintained that this omission violated Sowore’s constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees an accused person adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.

According to Abubakar, the defence could not reasonably be expected to cross-examine an unnamed witness whose statement and evidence had not been made available in advance. “The witness sought to be called is unknown to the defence and, indeed, unknown to the court,” he told Justice Umar, urging the court not to allow what he described as an ambush.

The prosecution dismissed the objection as speculative. Kehinde argued that nothing in Section 36(6) of the Constitution compels the state to reveal the identity of a witness before calling that person to testify. He maintained that the defence’s rights would be adequately protected during cross-examination and suggested that, if necessary, the defence could seek an adjournment to study the testimony.

Kehinde further disclosed that the state intended to call only one witness and that the individual was already present in court, ready to take the stand. In his view, the defence was attempting to delay proceedings on procedural grounds rather than addressing the substance of the allegations.

The exchange highlighted a recurring tension in Nigerian criminal trials involving politically exposed defendants: the balance between speedy prosecution and the procedural safeguards designed to ensure fairness. In cybercrime cases, where digital evidence and online speech are central, questions about disclosure, witness identity and the nature of the alleged harm often take on added significance.

After listening to both sides, Justice Umar opted for a middle course. The judge directed the prosecution to provide the defence with the witness statement, effectively acknowledging the need for the accused to know the case against him in sufficient detail before trial. The matter was then adjourned for definite hearing, giving both parties time to prepare for what is expected to be a closely watched proceeding.

The decision to drop charges against Meta and X while pressing ahead with the case against Sowore is likely to fuel debate among legal analysts and digital rights advocates. Some see the withdrawal as a tacit recognition of the legal and diplomatic complications involved in prosecuting foreign tech companies in Nigerian courts over user-generated content. Others interpret it as a strategic narrowing of the case to focus on a domestic political critic rather than multinational corporations with vast legal resources.

Sowore, a long-time government critic and publisher of the online platform Sahara Reporters, has previously faced treason and other charges over his activism and calls for nationwide protests. His latest prosecution under the cybercrime law adds to growing concerns among civil society groups that the legislation is being used to criminalise dissent and chill robust political debate on social media.

Supporters of the law argue that it is necessary to curb misinformation, online harassment and content that could incite violence or undermine public order. Critics counter that its broad and sometimes vague provisions give authorities wide discretion to target opponents, journalists and activists for statements that, in many democracies, would be protected as free speech.

As the case proceeds, it is expected to test not only the interpretation of the Cybercrimes Act but also the judiciary’s willingness to draw a clear line between legitimate criticism of public officials and criminal conduct. With Meta and X now out of the dock, the spotlight rests squarely on Sowore, his contested post about President Tinubu and the broader question of how far Nigerians can go in challenging those in power online.