A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore, against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director General, and Meta Platforms Incorporated (formerly Facebook).
In a judgment he delivered yesterday, Justice Mohammed Umar resolved the three issues identified for determination against Sowore, declined to grant any of the reliefs sought
He dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.
Sowore had claimed, in the suit, that the decision by Meta Incorporated, acting on the instruction of the DSS and its DG, took down a post he made about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu a criminal, and deactivated his Facebook account.
He had, on August 26, last year, published a post on his Facebook account, in which he referred to the President as a “criminal”.
In the post, Sowore said: “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
Sowore argued that the decision by Meta Incorporated, allegedly acting on the directive of the DSS and its DG to take down his post and deactivate his account without hearing from him, contravened his rights to fair hearing, to freedom of expression and to associate.
In resolving the first issue, Justice Umar, held that Sowore wrongly made an allegation of contravention of his right to a fair hearing against the three respondents – DSS, its DG, and Meta Platforms Incorporated.
The judge held that Sowore’s claims against the respondents did not relate to a fair hearing, which the law, under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure, envisaged.
He added: “The law is that to seek to enforce a fundamental right to fair hearing provided under Chapter four of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the alleged violation must be in respect of proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law.
“There would be no case of infringement of the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution when the decision alleged to have violated one’s constitutional right to fair hearing is that of a non-judicial body.
“In the instant case, the alleged violation of the right to fair hearing of the applicant (Sowore) was made against the respondents, which were not contemplated under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as explained by judicial authorities.
“In the light of the above, it is my holding here that fair hearing does not apply to the instant case.”
In resolving the second issue, Justice Umar held that the complaint by the DSS and its DG about Sowore’s August 26, 2025 Facebook post and the decision by Meta Incorporated to take the post down and deactivate his account did not amount to violations of his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association, guaranteed under Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution.
The judge further held that the rights to freedom of expression and association are, like all other constitutionally guaranteed rights, not absolute.
He said: “It is to be noted that the protection of rights and reputation of others is one of the instances where right to freedom of expression can be curtailed.
“Expression can be restricted to protect the rights, reputation, or privacy of others. This is to say, where an expression is meant to disparage an individual or group of individuals, the law will not allow it.
“This is to say the law will frown at any expression that will cast aspersion on others in the name of expressing the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
“This is the rationale behind the derogation of the fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” he said.
The judge also held that “the right to freedom expression is guaranteed under our laws, provided that citizens must be cautious with the reputation of others while they express and disseminate their opinions”.
Justice Umar added that the DSS and its DS, in complaining to Meta Incorporated that Sowore’s post violated Nigeria’s laws did not violate his (Sowore’s) rights, but only took the right step to use Facebook reporting channels to report the post of the applicant.
He said: “This court agreed with the submission of the first and second respondents that whatever action Facebook has taken is entirely done under its own policies and independent judgment.
“Therefore, this court did not see how the freedom of expression and or association of the applicant under the circumstances presented is infringed.”
In resolving the third issue, which is whether or not the applicant was entitled to the reliefs sought, the judge held that the reliefs sought by the applicant are declaratory in nature, and the applicant is under a duty to succeed by the strength of his case.
He said: “A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant has failed to convince this court that his rights as guaranteed under Sections 36(1), 39 and 41 have been or are likely to be threatened by the respondents.
“This court is of the firm view that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and | so hold. On the whole, I find no merit in this application and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Umar said.
Following applications for cost made by lawyer to the DSS and its DG, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) and counsel to Meta Incorporated, Victoria Bassey, Justice Umar awarded a cost of N1.5 million against Sowore at N500,000 to each of the three respondents.
