Court Throws Out Sowore's Lawsuit Against DSS, Meta Over Tinubu Post

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has rejected a lawsuit initiated by politician and publisher Omoyele Sowore concerning alleged violations of fundamental rights. The respondents in the suit included the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director General, and Meta Platforms Incorporated.

In a ruling delivered on Thursday, April 2, Justice Mohammed Umar found no merit in Sowore's claims and dismissed the case. The judge declined to grant any of the reliefs sought by the applicant.

Sowore had contended that Meta, allegedly acting on instructions from the DSS and its chief, removed a Facebook post where he referred to President Bola Tinubu as a "criminal." He also stated that his account was subsequently deactivated. The post in question, dated August 26, 2025, read, “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”

He argued that the deletion of his post and the disabling of his account, done without prior notification, constituted a breach of his rights to a fair hearing, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.

However, Justice Umar clarified that the right to a fair hearing, as stipulated in Chapter Four of the 1999 Constitution, is applicable only to proceedings before courts or tribunals. 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 be in respect of 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 to fair hearing is that of a non-judicial body.”

The judge further ruled that the actions taken by the DSS and Meta did not constitute an infringement of Sowore's rights to freedom of expression and association.

He elaborated, “It is to be noted that the protection of the rights and reputation of others is one of the instances where the right to freedom of expression can be curtailed. Expression can be restricted to protect the rights, reputation, or privacy of others. This is to say, where an expression is meant to disparage an individual or a group of individuals, the law will not allow it.”

Justice Umar also indicated that Meta operated independently according to its own established policies. The court stated, “This court agreed with the submission of the first and second respondents that whatever action Facebook has taken is entirely done under its own policies and independent judgment.”

Regarding the specific reliefs Sowore requested, the court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that his rights had been violated or were under imminent threat.

“A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application shows the applicant has failed to convince this court that his rights as guaranteed 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 hold. On the whole, I find no merit in this application, and it is hereby dismissed,” the judge concluded.

Following requests for cost awards from the legal representatives of the DSS and Meta, the court ordered Sowore to pay N1.5 million in costs, with N500,000 allocated to each of the three respondents.