The planned arraignment of Omoyele Sowore, publisher of SaharaReporters online platform, on charges of defaming President Bola Tinubu stalled yesterday at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The trial judge, Muhammad Umar postponed the case to October after it emerged that Sowore had not been served with the charges.
The charges stemmed from Sowore’s posts on X and Facebook in August calling President Tinubu a criminal.
Recall that earlier this month, the Nigerian government filed five counts of cybercrimes and defamation jointly against Sowore, Facebook and X. The government instituted the charges after the futile efforts of the country’s secret police agency, the Department of State Service (DSS), to compel the trio to delete the posts.
Sowore, a human rights activist and former presidential candidate, was charged alongside the parent companies of Facebook and X.
However, only Sowore appeared in the dock yesterday. While Meta – the Facebook owner (third defendant) – was represented in court by its lawyers, X Corporation – the owner of X (second defendant) – did not send any representative or lawyer to court.
With the prosecution poised to proceed with the arraignment, Sowore’s lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, told the judge that the charges had not been served on his client as required by law. He said the arraignment could not proceed on that ground.
But the prosecution lawyer, Mohammed Abubakar, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Federal Ministry of Justice, maintained that the charges had been served on Sowore.
The dispute prompted the judge to call for the court’s records, after which he confirmed that while Facebook and X had been served, Mr Sowore had not been personally served. Therefore, on the prosecution’s request, the court permitted the service of the charges on Sowore in court.
After serving Sowore with the charges, Abubakar, the prosecution lawyer, requested to proceed with the arraignment of the defendants.
However, Sowore’s lawyer argued that under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), arraignment could only take place at least three days after service.
The prosecution insisted it could proceed with the arraignment on the grounds that Sowore was present in court and aware of the proceedings. Again, Sowore’s lawyer countered that suggestion, maintaining that the ACJA does not allow bypassing the three-day window without the defendant’s consent.
The prosecution then asked the judge for a short adjournment.
The presiding judge postponed the arraignment to 27 October.
