Court dismisses sowore’s suit against SSS, Meta
Add us on Google The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Sahara Reporters publisher, Omoyele Sowore, against the State Security Service (SSS), its Director General, Adeola Ajayi, and Meta Platforms Incorporated, the parent company of Facebook. The judge, Mohammed Umar, dismissed the suit after declining to grant any of Mr Sowore’s prayers. Resolving all three issues raised by Mr Sowore against him and in favour of the respondents, the judge said the suit was “without merit.” Mr Sowore had filed the suit, accusing Meta of taking down a post he made on 26 August last year about President Bola Tinubu. The activist referred to Mr Tinubu as a criminal in the controversial post he shared on social media. “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!” he wrote on both the Facebook as well as X. The SSS subsequently wrote separate letters to both X Incorp, the parent company of X, and Meta (Facebook) Incorp, asking them to delete Mr Sowore’s posts and deactivate his accounts or face the consequences. SSS, which has a history of arresting and instigating the prosecution of Mr Sowore over his public views, also warned the activist to delete his latest social media posts. Mr Sowore wrote to both X Incorp and Meta Incorp to defend his post, informing them that the call by the SSS was the latest in a series of harassments, rights violations, mistreatment he has faced from the government over his public views and civic actions. He also replied to the SSS, insisting he would not delete the posts. In September 2025, after waiting for the tech giants’ actions on its letter to no avail, the SSS charged both of them alongside Mr Sowore with cybercrime charges. In January this year, the SSS re-arraigned Mr Sowore after amending the charges to free both X and Facebook leaving the activist as the sole defendant. SSS logo Both tech platforms did not make any public comment on the Nigerian government’s request to delete Mr Sowore’s posts. However, in his rights enforcement suit against Meta, Mr Sowore alleged that the firm allegedly directed by the SSS and its diirector-general, violated his rights to fair hearing, freedom of expression, and association, because they took down his post without hearing from him. No right violation In resolving one of the issues raised by Mr Sowore, the judge said the activist wrongly claimed a violation of his right to fair hearing against the respondents. He explained that such rights apply only to proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law. “The law is that, to seek to enforce 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. According to the judge, there can be no case of infringement of the right to fair hearing under section 36(1) of the constitution when the decision alleged to have violated one’s constitutional right to fair hearing is that of a non-judicial body. In the instant case. He said violation of rights to fair hearing by a non-judicial body was not contemplated under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as explained by judicial authorities.” “In light of the above, it is my holding here that fair hearing is not applicable to the instant case,” the judge said. Right to freedom of expression The judge also held that complaints by the SSS and its director-general over Sowore’s post, and Meta’s decision to remove it and deactivate his account, did not violate his rights to freedom of expression or association under Sections 39 and 40 of the constitution. He said the rights are not absolute, noting that “the protection of 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, the judge said. “This is to say, where an expression is meant to disparage an individual or group of individuals, the law will not allow it.” The judge said the law frowns on any expression that casts aspersion on others in the name of expressing constitutional right to freedom of expression. “This is the rationale behind the derogation of the fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” he daid. “The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed under our laws, provided that citizens must be cautious with the reputation of others while they express and disseminate their opinions.” The judge also held that the SSS and its director-general did not violate Mr Sowore’s rights by reporting the post to Meta, noting that Facebook acted under its own policies and independent judgement. “This court agreed with the submission of the first and second respondents that whatever action Facebook took was entirely done under its own policies and independent judgement. “Therefore, this court does not see how the freedom of expression and or association of applicants under the circumstances presented is infringed.” On the third issue – whether Mr Sowore was entitled to his prayers, the judge answered in the negative, ruling that he failed to establish his case. “A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application, 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 I so hold. On the whole, I find no merit in this application and it is hereby dismissed,” the judge ruled. The judge awarded N1.5 million cost against Mr Sowore, dividing it equally at N500,000 to each of the three respondents – Meta, the SSS and its director-general. Meanwhile, Mr Sowore is currently facing criminal charges brought against him by the SSS over his controversial posts referring to Mr Tinubu as criminal. The case is before the same judge that gave judgement on Mr Sowore’s civil suit. The proceedings took a dramatic turn on 16 March when the judge asked Mr Sowore’s lawyer to kneel during proceedings as a punishment for what the judge believed to be an unruling attitude of the lawyer. The prosecution has finished presenting its case. Mr Sowore filed a no-case submission, urging the court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the prosecution failed to link him with any crime. The judge fixed 13 April for parties to make final arguments on the issue. Share this: Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email Click to print (Opens in new window) Print