A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a request by Omoyele Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), to compel the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Tosin Ajayi, to testify in person as a defence witness.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore over social media posts published in August 2025 on X and Facebook in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” and accused him of lying about the level of corruption in the country.
Sowore, who is currently presenting his defence, had applied for a subpoena compelling Ajayi to appear in court as his third witness.
However, in a ruling on Monday, Justice Mohammed Umar upheld the prosecution’s argument that the DSS chief did not need to appear personally because the testimony sought concerned an official act of the agency rather than a matter personal to him.
The judge agreed that another DSS official could appear in court to testify on behalf of the agency.
Following the ruling, Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), called Michael Jego, a DSS investigator, as the defence’s third witness.
At an earlier hearing on October 2, prosecuting counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) had argued against compelling the DSS director-general to testify in person.
Kehinde cited the Supreme Court decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR, Part 498, page 347 at 373, which held that insisting that only a named official could comply with a subpoena would be absurd where the evidence concerned an official act.
He also recalled that the Attorney-General of the Federation had appeared in court on July 28 to make a similar argument, leading to an understanding between the parties that a designated DSS official could represent the director-general.
According to Kehinde, the agency had nominated an official who was present in court and ready to testify.
He argued that Ajayi had no personal interest in the case and that requiring him to attend every proceeding involving the DSS across different divisions of the Federal High Court would be impractical.
Kehinde said: “This is a case that is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case on March 16, 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defence to argue that, at one point, it agreed that an official of the DSS should come, but now it is insisting on the DG alone.
“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.”
The court adjourned further hearing in the case until October 26.
