Court Dismisses Sowore’s Suit Against DSS, Meta Over Facebook Post on Tinubu
Court Dismisses Sowore’s Suit Against DSS, Meta Over Facebook Post on Tinubu
A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by politician and publisher, Omoyele Sowore, against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director General, and Meta Platforms Incorporated over the takedown of his Facebook post on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Justice Mohammed Umar, in a judgment delivered on Thursday, resolved all three issues raised for determination against Sowore, refused the reliefs sought, and dismissed the suit for lacking merit.
Sowore had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1887/2025, alleged that Meta Incorporated, acting on the directive of the DSS and its Director General, removed his post and deactivated his Facebook account after he described President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal.”
In the post published on August 26, 2025, Sowore wrote, “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
He argued that the actions of the respondents violated his rights to fair hearing, freedom of expression, and association.
However, Justice Umar held that Sowore’s claim of breach of fair hearing was misplaced, noting that such rights apply only to proceedings before a court or tribunal.
“The law is that, to seek to enforce the 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.”
On the issue of freedom of expression and association, the court ruled that the DSS and its Director General did not violate Sowore’s rights by reporting the post to Meta.
“It is to be noted that the protection of the rights and reputation of others is one of the instances where the 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 a 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 further stated that freedom of expression is not absolute and must be exercised with caution.
He added, “the right to freedom of 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 also upheld the argument that Meta acted independently under its own policies in taking down the content.
“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.”
On whether Sowore was entitled to the reliefs sought, the court ruled that he failed to establish his case.
“A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application shows 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.
The court also awarded costs of N1.5 million against Sowore, with N500,000 each to the DSS, its Director General, and Meta Platforms Incorporated.
