Court Dismisses Sowore’s Suit Against DSS And Meta Over Tinubu ‘Criminal’ Post

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed the fundamental rights suit filed by activist  Omoyele Sowore against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, and Meta Platforms Incorporated, the parent company of Facebook.

In his judgment, Justice Mohammed Umar ruled against Sowore on all three issues raised in the case, refused all the reliefs he requested, and declared the suit lacking in merit.

Sowore had accused Meta of removing a Facebook post he made about President Bola Tinubu and deactivating his account, allegedly after acting on instructions from the DSS and its Director-General.

The controversial post, made on August 26, 2025, described Tinubu as a “criminal” and criticised comments the president made during a trip to Brazil.

“This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!” the post reads.

Sowore argued that taking down the post and shutting his account without first hearing from him violated his constitutional rights to fair hearing, freedom of expression, and association.

While addressing the first issue, Justice Umar held that Sowore wrongly relied on the right to fair hearing in the case.

The judge explained that the constitutional right to fair hearing only applies to proceedings before a legally recognised court or tribunal, not decisions taken by non-judicial bodies such as DSS or Meta.

He therefore ruled that the claim of fair hearing could not stand in the circumstances of the case.

He stated: “The law is that, to seek to enforce the fundamental right to fair hearing provided under Chapter Four of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the alleged violation must relate to proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law. There would be no case of infringement of the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution when the decision alleged to have violated one’s constitutional right is that of a non-judicial body.

“In the instant case, the alleged violation to the right to fair hearing of the applicant (Sowore) was made against respondents, which are not contemplated under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as explained by judicial authorities. In light of the above, it is my holding that fair hearing is not applicable to this case.”

On the second issue, the court held that the actions of DSS, its Director-General, and Meta did not breach Sowore’s rights to freedom of expression and association under Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution.

Justice Umar stressed that constitutional rights are not absolute and may be limited when they affect the reputation or rights of other people.

According to him, the law does not protect expressions aimed at insulting or damaging the image of an individual under the guise of free speech.

He noted that the DSS only used Facebook’s official reporting channels to complain that the post breached Nigerian law, while the final decision to remove the content and deactivate the account was made independently by Meta under its own platform rules.

The court said it found no evidence that Sowore’s rights were violated through that process.

“It is to be noted that the protection of the rights and reputation of others is one instance where the right to freedom of expression can be curtailed. Expression can be restricted to protect the rights, reputation, or privacy of others.

“Where an expression is meant to disparage an individual or group, the law will not allow it. The law frowns upon any expression that casts aspersion on others in the name of constitutional freedom of expression. This is the rationale behind the derogation of fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” he said.

Justice Umar added: “The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed under our laws, provided that citizens are cautious of the reputation of others while expressing and disseminating their opinions.”

He noted that the DSS and its DG, in complaining to Meta Platforms that Sowore’s post violated Nigerian law, did not infringe his rights but only used the proper Facebook reporting channels.

“This court agrees with the submission of the first and second respondents that any action Facebook took is entirely under its own policies and independent judgment. Therefore, this court did not see how the freedom of expression or association of the applicant, under the circumstances presented, is infringed.”

Third ruling on whether Sowore deserved the reliefs he requested, the judge ruled that he failed to prove that any of his rights under the Constitution had been violated or were under threat.

Justice Umar therefore concluded that the case had no merit and dismissed it in its entirety.

“A careful perusal of the applicant’s deposition in the affidavit in support shows that he has failed to convince this court that his rights under Sections 36(1), 39, and 41 have been, or are likely to be, threatened by the respondents. This court is of the firm view that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought, and so holds. On the whole, I find no merit in this application, and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Umar said.

After hearing separate applications for legal costs from the lawyers representing DSS, its Director-General, and Meta, the court awarded a total cost of N1.5 million against Sowore, saying the amount is to be paid as N500,000 each to the three respondents.

KanyiDaily recalls that the Federal High Court in Abuja recently dismissed the cyberbullying case against Omoyele Sowore, which was filed by Kayode Egbetokun, a former inspector-general of police (IGP).