The Sowore cybercrime arraignment delayed after a Federal High Court in Abuja found that Omoyele Sowore had not been properly served the charge sheet, forcing the court to reset the arraignment date to October 27. The case stems from allegations that Sowore published statements accusing President Tinubu of lying about corruption during a trip to Brazil—statements the prosecution claims violated Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act and criminal defamation laws.

Sowore faces a five-count charge filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Federal Government. Among the counts is the allegation that he posted:

“This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!” on August 25, 2025. The following day, he allegedly reposted the same message on his Facebook page in a way the prosecution contends was meant to incite public unrest and damage the President’s reputation. Sahara

At Tuesday’s court session, Sowore’s lead counsel, Abubakar Marshall, forcefully argued that his client had not received the charge in writing, and that as a joint charge involving multiple defendants, all must be served before the matter could proceed. The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Garba, agreed. The court granted the request by the Director of Public Prosecutions for an order to serve Sowore in open court, which he accepted, and deferred the arraignment to October 27, 2025.

Allegations Against Sowore & Co-Defendants

The charges are grounded in the newly amended Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2024, specifically Section 24(2)(b), along with relevant provisions in the Criminal Code Act (Section 59). Sowore is accused of publishing false and defamatory statements with intent to cause public fear or disturbance and of inciting disagreement among Nigerians holding differing opinions about the President.

Also named in the suit are X Corporation (formerly Twitter) and Meta Platforms (Facebook)—the social media platforms through which the allegedly objectionable posts were published. These companies are being joined as co-defendants for their role in content dissemination.

What the Delay Signals

The fact that the court refused to proceed with arraignment due to improper service underscores adherence to procedural fairness—even in high-stakes political trials. It reveals that despite public pressure, the judiciary is insisting on fundamental rights that protect defendants.
For Sowore and his legal team, this delay buys critical time to scrutinize the charges, mobilize his defense, and assess the legal grounds on which the government will build its case.

What’s Next: October 27 & Beyond

On October 27, the court is expected to formally arraign Sowore and his co-defendants. At that hearing, pleadings will be entered, and the court may set timelines for pretrial motions.
Observers will be watching to see whether the case proceeds expeditiously—or whether further delays, interlocutory motions, or jurisdictional challenges will be raised by either side.

If successful, this case could become a landmark for how social media criticism of public officials is treated under Nigeria’s evolving cybercrime legislation.
Given the political sensitivities, the spotlight is also on whether the prosecution will demonstrate robust evidence beyond the social media posts—or whether the defense will successfully argue constitutional limits to defamation law and digital speech.