An Abuja Federal High Court has struck out Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation from the cybercrime case filed by the Federal Government against activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore.
The decision followed an application by the prosecution to amend the original charge, leaving Sowore as the sole defendant in the matter.
Sowore was initially arraigned on December 2, 2025, alongside Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation, in a case marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025. The charges arose from social media posts allegedly made by Sowore, which the prosecution claimed contained false statements against President Bola Tinubu.
At the resumed hearing on Monday before Justice Umar, the lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, informed the court that an amended charge filed on December 5, 2025, was ready to be read. No objection was raised by the defence.
The prosecution subsequently withdrew the earlier charge and formally applied for the names of Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation to be removed from the case. Justice Umar granted the application and struck out both companies.
Under the amended charge, Sowore is accused of knowingly transmitting a message through his verified social media account on August 25, 2025, which the prosecution alleges was false and capable of inciting a breakdown of law and order.
The charge relates to a post in which Sowore described the President as a “criminal” in connection with comments made during an international engagement. The prosecution alleges that the post constitutes cyberstalking under relevant provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
When the amended charge was read in court, Sowore pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution applied to proceed with trial and sought to call its first witness. This request was opposed by Sowore’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar, who argued that the amended charge was defective.
Abubakar contended that the charge failed to disclose the identity of the prosecution’s witness or include a witness statement, arguing that this omission violated the defendant’s constitutional right to fair hearing and impaired the defence’s ability to prepare adequately for trial.
He maintained that calling an undisclosed witness amounted to procedural unfairness and urged the court to decline the prosecution’s request.
In response, Kehinde dismissed the objection, arguing that the Constitution does not require the prosecution to disclose the identity of its witness before trial. He added that the defence retained the right to seek an adjournment for cross-examination if necessary, noting that the prosecution intended to call only one witness who was already present in court.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Umar directed the prosecution to make the witness statement available to the defence and adjourned the case to January 22, 2026, for definite hearing.
