Sowore’s demand for DSS DG’s personal appearance as witness absurd–Prosecution

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Akinlolu Kehinde, has described as “absurd” the insistence by human rights activist Omoyele Sowore that the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Tosin Ajayi, must personally appear in court and testify as a defence witness in his cybercrime trial.

Kehinde, counsel for the prosecution, made the submission on Friday before the Federal High Court in Abuja while opposing an application by Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, seeking the personal appearance of the DSS Director-General.

Sowore is being prosecuted by the DSS over social media posts published in August 2025 on X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook, in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” and accused him of misrepresenting the level of corruption in the country.

At Friday’s proceedings, Kehinde argued that it was unnecessary for the DSS Director-General to appear personally merely because his name was stated on the subpoena issued by the defence.

He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR (Pt. 498) 347 at 373, where, according to him, the court held that where a subpoena is directed to a named public official, it would be absurd to insist that only the named officer could appear in compliance with the subpoena.

Kehinde recalled that the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had appeared in court on July 28, 2026, leading the prosecution team, and made the same argument against the insistence that the DSS Director-General should personally testify.

He said it was subsequently understood by the parties that an appropriate DSS official could be nominated to represent the Director-General for the purpose of giving evidence.

According to him, the prosecution had complied with that understanding by designating a DSS official, who was present in court and ready to proceed with the case.

Kehinde maintained that the DSS Director-General had no personal interest in the case, having acted only in his official capacity.

He further argued that it would be impracticable to expect the DSS Director-General to personally attend proceedings in all the cases involving the agency across the various divisions of the Federal High Court.

“This is a case that is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case since March 16, 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defence to argue that, at a point, it agreed that an official of the DSS should come, but now it is insisting on the DG alone,” Kehinde told the court.

He added: “The decision as to who should attend court is at the discretion of the court, not that of the defence. An official of the DSS is competent to give evidence in place of the DG.”

Defence insists on DSS DG

Earlier, however, Olumide-Fusika argued that the prosecution had repudiated the understanding reached by the parties that a DSS official would appear in place of the Director-General.

He alleged that the prosecution failed to produce the designated official at the previous sitting, thereby undermining the earlier arrangement.

The defence counsel further argued that since the subpoena and hearing notice specifically named the DSS Director-General, Ajayi was required to appear personally.

Olumide-Fusika explained that the defence’s decision to subpoena the DSS boss in his personal capacity followed the evidence of the second defence witness, Uwem Davies, a DSS official.

According to him, Davies repeatedly indicated during his testimony that some of the questions put to him could only be answered by the Director-General.

The defence therefore maintained that the personal appearance of the DSS boss had become necessary for the proper determination of the issues arising from the evidence.

Justice Mohammed Garba Umar has fixed October 6, 2026, for ruling on whether the DSS Director-General can be compelled to appear personally and testify as a defence witness on matters relating to actions taken by the agency.

The central issue before the court is not simply whether the DSS Director-General is a subpoenaed witness, but whether the court should compel him to appear personally, or whether another duly authorised DSS official can give evidence on matters arising from the agency’s actions.

The prosecution’s position is that an authorised DSS official can represent the agency and that the Director-General’s personal attendance is unnecessary. The defence, however, argues that the DG was specifically subpoenaed because an earlier DSS witness indicated that certain questions could only be answered by him.

The ruling fixed for October 6, 2026 should therefore determine the immediate dispute over the scope and effect of the subpoena.