The prosecution in the trial of Sahara Reporters publisher, Omoyele Sowore, has opposed the insistence by the defence that the Director-General of the Department of State Services, Tosin Ajayi, must appear personally to testify as a defence witness.
Prosecution Counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, argued that Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, was wrong to insist that the DSS Director-General must attend court in person after being subpoenaed by the defence.
Kehinde made the submission during the resumed hearing of the case before Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Sowore, who was the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, is being prosecuted by the DSS over allegations bordering on cybercrime.
The prosecution alleges that Sowore, in August 2025, published posts on X, formerly known as Twitter, and Facebook describing President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” and accusing him of lying about the level of corruption in the country.
In arguing against the defence’s position, Kehinde cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR, Part 498, page 347 at 373.
He submitted that the apex court held that where a subpoena is directed to a named official, it would be unreasonable to insist that only the named officer could appear to comply with it.
Kehinde recalled that the Attorney-General of the Federation had attended court on July 28 to make a similar submission, arguing that the defence should not insist on the personal appearance of the DSS Director-General.
He said the parties subsequently agreed that another DSS official could be nominated to represent the agency.
According to him, an official of the DSS had been designated for that purpose and was present in court, ready to testify.
Kehinde also argued that the DSS Director-General had no personal interest in the case and had acted only in his official capacity.
He said it would be impractical for the DSS Director-General to personally attend every case involving the agency across the various divisions of the Federal High Court.
“This case 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 a 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,” Kehinde said.
Defence insists on DSS DG’s appearance
Earlier, Olumide-Fusika argued that the prosecution had reneged on an understanding between the parties that a DSS official would appear in place of the Director-General by allegedly failing to produce the official at the previous hearing.
The defence counsel maintained that because the subpoena and hearing notice were issued in the name of the DSS Director-General, Ajayi should appear in person.
He said the decision to subpoena the DSS chief personally was prompted by the testimony of the second defence witness, Uwem Davies, a DSS official.
According to Olumide-Fusika, Davies had repeatedly stated during his testimony that certain questions could only be answered by the Director-General.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case until October 6 for a ruling on whether the DSS Director-General can be compelled to appear personally and testify as a defence witness regarding actions taken by the agency.