The presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, has rescinded his earlier decision to invite the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi, to testify for the defence in his (Sowore’s) ongoing trial for alleged criminal defamation.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) in relation to alleged criminal defamation arising from claims that he referred to President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in posts made on his official X and Facebook accounts. ExecutiveBranch
Defence lawyer Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN) had, at the last hearing on July 22, indicated his intention to apply for a subpoena for the DG, DSS, to appear before the court to testify for the defence and to produce a document – a letter dated September 7, 2025, asking Sowore to retract his alleged criminal defamatory posts about Tinubu.
Olumide-Fusika said his decision to invite the DG, DSS, was because of the alleged inability of an official of the DSS, Uwem Davies, who appeared as the second defence’s witness (DW2) on subpoena, to adequately address questions he raised in relation to the September 7, 2025 letter.
The defence lawyer had said that, since Davies, who authored the said September 7, 2025 letter, said he acted on the directive of the DG, DSS, it was necessary for the DSS’ DG to appear and shed more light on the letter.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Olumide-Fusika later changed his mind on the issue after a heated argument on the propriety of the appearance of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), in the case without prior notice.
When the case was called on Tuesday, Fagbemi, who was appearing in the case for the first time, queried the competence of the subpoena issued on the DG, DSS, and urged the court to hold that the invitation to the DG, DSS, amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.
Fagbemi said it was incorrect to state that the subpoena was served on Ajayi, as earlier claimed by the defence lawyer, noting that service of the subpoena ought to be personal on the person it was directed at.
The AGF also noted that the application for subpoena and the writ subsequently issued did not indicate when the DSS’ DG was expected to attend court.
The AGF, who argued that the subpoena amounted to an abuse of the process of the court, noted that the letter, which the defence wants the DG, DSS to produce and answer questions on, has already been admitted in evidence twice by the court.
“As a matter of record, this document has been tendered and marked Exhibit D. It was also tendered as Exhibit DWC on July 22, 2026. It was tendered by the defendant,” Fagbemi said.
He argued that, although the defendant could apply for a subpoena against anybody in aid of its case, such privilege has limitations.
Fagbemi said, “It is worth noting that the document in contention was authored by DW2 (Davies).
The matter in contention is an official matter.”
“The DG of the DSS is not being subpoenaed to appear in his personal capacity. He is being subpoenaed in his official capacity to give evidence in respect of an official letter.
It is not about his person or any allegations against him. So, there are limits.”
He urged the court to discountenance the subpoena and to call on the defendant to proceed with his defence, arguing that the subpoena is being used by the defence for an indirect and improper object rather than any bona fide purpose.
Responding, Olumide-Fusika faulted Fagbemi’s appearance in the case, arguing that if he wished to take over the case from the lawyer who had been handling it, he should do so appropriately by filing a notice.
“What AGF has done today is to appear and make submissions. We are entitled to be notified that he is taking over the prosecution of the case from the lawyer who filed the charge and has been appearing,” Olumide-Fusika said.
He sought an adjournment to enable him to reply to an authority cited by the AGF and urged the court to discountenance all that the AGF has said, stressing: “He (AGF) is not in the matter. He did not file the proper notice that he was taking over the case.”
Before both lawyers could agree on when to return for Olumide-Fusika to reply to the authority cited by the AGF, Fagbemi beckoned to the defence lawyer, who left his seat and moved towards where Fagbemi stood.
They conferred briefly, following which Fagbemi announced that
Olumide-Fusika had changed his mind and would no longer insist that the DG, DSS, must appear in person, but that someone else could come to answer the questions he (Olumide-Fusika) has in respect of the said letter of September 7, 2025.
At that point, Fagbemi and Olumide-Fusika agreed that the latest development had overtaken their arguments and that it was no longer necessary for the judge to deliver a ruling on the earlier arguments.
Justice Mohammed Umar subsequently adjourned till August 3 for any official of the DSS to appear in relation to the subpoena earlier directed at the DG, DSS.
Source: The Nation News
You must be logged in to post a comment.