The Department of State Services (DSS) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside a subpoena issued at the request of activist and SaharaReporters publisher Omoyele Sowore, seeking to compel the agency’s lead prosecuting lawyer to testify in his ongoing cyberbullying trial.
The security agency argued that the application to summon senior advocate Akinlolu Kehinde as a defence witness was unnecessary and could delay the criminal proceedings.
The matter came before Justice Mohammed Umar on Tuesday, November 3, with both the prosecution and defence presenting arguments over whether the subpoena should remain in force.
Sowore is standing trial over allegations of cyberbullying involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The allegations remain before the court, and no finding of guilt was reported at the hearing.
DSS Says Subpoena Is Intended to Delay Sowore’s Trial
Counsel for the DSS, Kenneth Cyril-Ita, urged the court to reject the subpoena, describing it as an attempt to obstruct the progress of the trial.
Cyril-Ita argued that the request was made in bad faith and that the proposed testimony was not relevant to the charges against Sowore.
According to the prosecution, requiring its lead counsel to testify would interfere with the government’s ability to retain its chosen legal representative.
The DSS maintained that a lawyer should not be compelled to act simultaneously as an advocate and a witness in the same proceedings.
It therefore asked the court to cancel the subpoena and direct the defendant to continue presenting his defence.
Prosecution Cites Evidence Act to Oppose Subpoena
The DSS relied on provisions of the Evidence Act in challenging the request.
Its lawyer cited Section 192, which concerns restrictions on the disclosure of certain communications between legal practitioners and their clients.
The prosecution argued that information obtained by a lawyer during a professional engagement cannot ordinarily be disclosed without the client’s consent, subject to the applicable legal exceptions.
Cyril-Ita also referred to Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act in questioning the admissibility of the evidence Sowore sought to introduce.
He maintained that the proposed testimony did not relate directly to the issues the court was required to determine in the cyberbullying case.
The prosecution further disputed an allegation that it had sought to suspend or adjourn the trial until 2027.
According to Cyril-Ita, no such application was pending before the court.
Sowore’s Lawyers Defend Request to Summon DSS Counsel
Sowore’s legal team opposed the prosecution’s application and asked the court to uphold the subpoena.
The original subpoena was served through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Reuben Adakole, representing Sowore, argued that the defence should be allowed to call the DSS lead counsel to provide evidence considered relevant to its case.
The defence maintained that the subpoena should remain valid and enforceable.
The dispute centres on whether the proposed testimony is legally permissible and sufficiently relevant to justify compelling a lawyer involved in the prosecution to appear as a witness.
Court to Rule on November 9
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the proceedings until November 9, 2026, for a ruling.
The court is expected to determine whether the subpoena issued against Kehinde should be upheld or set aside.
The decision will address the procedural dispute over the proposed witness, rather than determine Sowore’s guilt or innocence on the underlying charge.
Until the ruling, the competing arguments remain submissions by the parties and not findings of the court.
Sowore’s Cyberbullying Trial Continues
The proceedings form part of Sowore’s ongoing prosecution over alleged online statements concerning President Tinubu.
The DSS has maintained that the case should proceed without unnecessary delays, while Sowore’s lawyers have sought to exercise the defence’s procedural rights during the trial.
The latest hearing raises questions about the scope of a defendant’s right to call witnesses, the relevance of proposed testimony and the protection of confidential lawyer-client communications.
Justice Umar’s ruling on November 9 will determine the immediate next step concerning the disputed subpoena.
