The prosecution in the trial of Omoyele Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), has faulted the defence's insistence that the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Tosin Ajayi, testify in person as a witness. Sowore is being prosecuted by the DSS over his August 2025 social media posts describing President Tinubu as a "criminal" and accusing him of lying about corruption.
At a recent hearing, prosecuting lawyer Akinlolu Kehinde argued that it was wrong for Sowore's lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, to insist that the DSS DG attend court in person. Kehinde cited a Supreme Court decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) which held that a subpoena directed to a named official does not require the official's personal appearance.
Kehinde recalled that the Attorney General of the Federation attended court on July 28, 2026, and made the same point that it was wrong for the defence to insist on the DSS DG's personal testimony. He said an official of the DSS was designated to stand in for the DG and was present in court, ready to proceed.
The prosecuting lawyer stressed that the DSS DG has no personal interest in the case and acted only in an official capacity. He added that, given the DSS's numerous cases across various divisions of the Federal High Court, it was impractical to expect the DG to attend all proceedings.
Olumide-Fusika had claimed that the prosecution repudiated the understanding that an official of the DSS would attend court in the DG's place by allegedly failing to produce the official on the last date. He argued that since the subpoena and hearing notice named the DSS DG, he must attend court in person.
The defence's insistence on the DSS DG's personal testimony was necessitated by the second defence witness's testimony that only the DG could answer certain questions. Justice Mohammed Umar has adjourned the case till October 6 for a ruling on whether the DSS DG can be compelled to appear and testify as a defence witness.
The case has been ongoing for over a year, with the prosecution closing its case on March 16, 2026. The defence's request for the DSS DG's testimony has raised questions about the court's discretion in determining who should attend court and testify on behalf of the DSS.
Key points
- The prosecution has faulted the defence's insistence on the DSS DG's personal testimony, citing a Supreme Court decision.
- The DSS DG's personal interest in the case is not at stake, and an official of the DSS is competent to give evidence in their place.
- The court will rule on October 6 on whether the DSS DG can be compelled to appear and testify as a defence witness.
