The Federal Government of Nigeria has removed Meta (Facebook) and Elon Musk’s X Inc. (formerly Twitter) from its amended alleged cyberbullying charges against politician and activist Omoyele Sowore.
This was announced on Monday before Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, by the government’s lawyer, A.T. Kehinde, SAN.
The development comes months after Meta’s (Facebook) lawyers urged the court to strike out the company’s name from the Federal Government’s alleged cyberbullying charge.
At the resumed proceedings on Monday, Kehinde, counsel for the prosecution, told the court that although the matter was slated for trial, he had an amended charge dated December 5, 2025, and requested that it be read to Sowore.
Sowore’s lawyer, Abubakar Marshal, confirmed that he had been served with the amended charge and raised no objection to it being read.
On their part, counsel for Meta and X, Paul Ihuoma and Christabel D., informed the court that their clients had been removed from the amended charge.
Kehinde subsequently withdrew the earlier charge, adding that Meta and X had also been withdrawn from the case.
After hearing from counsel, Justice Mohammed Umar ruled that “the names of Meta and X are hereby struck out from the case” and ordered that the amended charge be read.
However, Sowore stated that he did not know who “officialABAT” referred to in the amended charge, noting that in the earlier, now struck-out charge, he was accused of cyberbullying the President of Nigeria.
After consulting with his lawyer, Sowore allowed the charge to be read to him.
In the charge, the government argues that Sowore’s statement in question was false and intended to provoke a breakdown of law and order.
One of the charges alleged that Sowore’s verified X handle, @YeleSowore, posted the following statement: “THIS CRIMINAL @OFFICIALPBAT ACTUALLY WENT TO BRAZIL TO STATE THAT THERE IS NO MORE CORRUPTION UNDER HIS REGIME IN NIGERIA. WHAT AUDACITY TO LIE SHAMELESSLY!”
The prosecution contends that Sowore’s remarks contravened the provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024, specifically Section 24(1)(b).
In the list of exhibits seen by Naijaonpoint, the Federal Government highlighted the following exhibits: printouts of the defendant’s tweet on X; printouts of the defendant’s Facebook post; the complainant’s letters to X and Facebook; the defendant’s posts and tweets referenced in the letters to X and Facebook; printouts of comments and reactions on X; and a video recording of President Tinubu’s comments in Brazil.
In its list of witnesses, the Federal Government mentioned an unnamed “Investigating Officer,” adding that “take notice that the prosecution at the trial of this case may call any other witness(es) as it may deem necessary to prove its case.”
Sowore, however, pleaded not guilty to the two-count charge.
Sowore, however, pleaded not guilty to the two-count charge.
Kehinde subsequently asked that the trial commence, but Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal, objected, arguing that the trial could not commence because the prosecution had violated provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act by failing to front-load the defendant’s statement and the names of NAIJAONPOINT es.
He maintained that the Federal Government was obligated to furnish the defence with the list of witnesses, their names, and summaries of their testimonies.
Kehinde countered that such requirements apply to Magistrates’ Courts and that, regarding the names of witnesses who are intelligence officers, the defence could request a stand-down or adjournment to properly cross-examine them.
However, the judge told Kehinde that even if “it is an evil spirit that is listed as a witness” in a criminal trial, the case summary of NAIJAONPOINT es must be attached to the charge.
“Take a date to furnish the defendant with the necessary materials they need,” the judge ruled, and adjourned the matter to January 22 for hearing.
Naijaonpoint previously reported that the Federal Government had sued Sowore, Meta (Facebook) Inc., and Elon Musk’s X Inc. (formerly Twitter) as co-defendants, alleging that Sowore cyberbullied President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on social media.
At the previous arraignment, Sowore was present in court, while the second defendant (X) was not represented by counsel. Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo appeared for Meta Platforms Inc.
Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, representing Meta Platforms Inc. (third defendant), argued after reviewing the charge that it had nothing to do with his client.
Meta’s lawyer also said he was unaware of any service of a criminal charge on a foreign entity by email without a prior court order.
Abubakar, counsel for Sowore, requested a three-day adjournment for his client to review the charges and prepare his defence in line with the law.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) conceded to the adjournment.
Meta’s lawyer, Tayo-Oyetibo, told the judge that if the DPP intended to proceed with the criminal charge, “we will file an application to strike out our name from the charge.”
The judge advised Tayo-Oyetibo to make the application formally, not orally.
Criminal prosecution over cyberbullying allegations in Nigeria is prominent at national and sub-national levels.
However, such allegations are usually subject to the court’s intervention, which eventually shapes public perception regarding the application and interpretation of such laws.
Sowore’s case adds to a growing list of prosecutions under the Cybercrimes Act, which has become one of the most frequently cited pieces of legislation in Nigeria’s digital space.
In March 2024, social media activist Okoli Chioma was charged in Anambra State for allegedly publishing false claims about a businessman’s private life on Facebook.
Journalists have also faced scrutiny under the Act.
Civil society groups argue that the government risks using the cybercrime law as a backdoor to stifle press freedom.
Naijaonpoint also reported that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) recently called on President Bola Tinubu to halt the alleged use of the Cybercrimes Act to harass and detain journalists, critics, and citizens exercising their right to free expression online.