News Investigators/ The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday declined moves by Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, to tender an uncertified document in support of his defence in the ongoing trial for alleged criminal defamation.
Justice Mohammed Umar refused the application after Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, applied to tender the document through the third Defence Witness, Wayne Chikezie Elijah.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Sowore, is also the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC).
He was alleged to have made false claims against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” in a post he made on his “X” and Facebook accounts.
Against this development, the DSS charged him with criminal defamation, cyberstalking and incitement.
While leading the witness in evidence by Olumide-Fusika, Elijah told the court that he was a member of the defendant’s former legal team.
He said he had, at the time, accepted service of some court documents from the prosecution, on Sowore’s behalf.
The defence counsel then asked Elijah to produce the document and he brought out a copy of it.
Olumide-Fusika then applied to tender it in evidence but the prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, raised an objection.
Kehinde argued that the document, which the defence sought to tender, was a court document, which could only be admitted if it is a certified true copy (CTC) or the original copy.
He noted that in the case, what Olumide-Fusika applied to tender was just a mere photocopy of the actual document, which he argued, was inadmissible.
Ruling, Justice Umar overruled Olumide-Fusika’s argument that it was a court document that emelanated from the prosecution and so, required no certification.
According to the judge, the document is coming from the custody of a counsel, who claimed to be a counsel in the matter before.
He said the reason for the need for its certification was to be sure the document had not been tampered with.
“Having been in the custody of the said counsel, how is the court sure that the document has not been tampered with?
“The document is rejected and marked as such,” the judge ruled.
Under cross examination by Kehinde, Elijah confirmed that he was present in the courtroom while the second defence witness testified earlier in the proceedings on Wednesday.
Elijah said: “My lord, I was in and out of the courtroom. The CCTV of the court can confirm that I was indeed in an out of the courtroom.”
Earlier while being led in evidence by Olumide-Fusika, the second defence witness, Uwem Davies, an official of the DSS, who featured as a subpoenaed witness, said he is the Principal Officer, General Services at the DSS.
Davies said he was subpoenaed to testify in the case at the instance of the defendant.
He confirmed writing, on the directive of the Director General of the DSS, a letter, requesting the defendant to take down his post on his X and Facebook platforms because it was generating tension in the society.
The witness said the letter, dated Jan. 22, was the only letter he wrote, asking the defendant to retract what he had posted on his social media handle regarding President Bola Tinubu.
When shown a letter, dated Sept. 7, 2025, addressed to the MD, CEO of Meta, the parent body of Facebook, the witness said the letter contained his name, but was not authored by him.
He said one B. Bamigboye, who was also subpoenaed, was his colleague in the same department, but had since retired.
The witness said he did not interface with Sowore before writing the defendant, but acted on the directive of the DG of the DSS.
On whether the DG, DSS and himself were supporters of President Tinubu in view of their claim that Sowore’s post infuriated a number of the president’s supporters, the witness said he does not know.
He insisted that as a lawyer in the employment of the DSS, he was instructed by the DG of the DSS to write Sowore to retract his alleged false post about the president.
On whether he interacted with the supporters of the President before writing the letter, Davies said he did not, but wrote the letter as directed by his employer.
At this point, Olumide-Fusika told the court that he would have no option than to subpoena the DG of the DSS, because Davies had been unable to answer his questions the way he desired.
Under cross examination by Kehinde, Davies said all he did in respect of the case was in his official capacity, not personal capacity.
He said the subpoena, which he tendered earlier, was served on the service (DSS) and that the subpoena was passed on to him in his official capacity.
The witness confirmed that he and B. Bamigbose worked in the same department, but that Bamigboye had retired from service and his present location was unknown to his employer.
He said Bamigboye authored the letter to Chairman/CEO X Corp on behalf of the DG, DSS in respect of this case.
He added that Bamigboye authored the letter in his official capacity.
Davies said he has a copy of the letter with him.
Kehinde then applied to tender both documents in evidence, but Olumide-Fusika objected and the judge upheld the objection.
Although Olumide-Fusika told the court that he had 20 witnesses to call, he however applied for adjournment to enable him prepare his application for the issuance of a subpoena on the DG, DSS.
Olumide-Fusika said he had also applied that a subpoena be issued on the spokesman to President Tinubu, Bayo Onanuga.
The lawyer, however, said that the court’s bailiff told him that he had been unable to serve Onanuga with the subpoena.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned thr matter utill July 28 for the continuation of defence.
NAN