JUSTICE Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, 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).
News Point Nigeria reports that delivering judgment, Justice Umar resolved the three issues identified for determination against Sowore, declined to grant any of the reliefs sought, and dismissed the suit for being without merit.
Sowore had claimed that Meta Platforms, acting on the instruction of the DSS and its DG, took down a post he made about President Bola Tinubu, labeling him a criminal, and deactivated his Facebook account.
On August 26, 2025, Sowore published a post on his Facebook account in which he referred to President Tinubu as a “criminal.” In the post, he 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 Platforms, allegedly acting on the directive of the DSS and its DG, to take down his post and deactivate his account without hearing him contravened his rights to fair hearing, freedom of expression, and association.
In resolving the first issue, Justice Umar held that Sowore wrongly alleged contravention of his right to fair hearing against the three respondents, DSS, its DG, and Meta Platforms.
The judge noted that Sowore’s claims did not relate to fair hearing as envisaged under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure.
He stated: “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 relate to 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 is that of a non-judicial body.
“In the instant case, the alleged violation to the right to fair hearing of the applicant (Sowore) was made against respondents, which are not contemplated under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as explained by judicial authorities. In light of the above, it is my holding that fair hearing is not applicable to this case.”
On the second issue, Justice Umar held that the complaint by DSS and its DG about Sowore’s August 26, 2025 Facebook post, and Meta’s decision to remove the post and deactivate his account, did not violate his rights to freedom of expression and association under Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution.
The judge emphasised that these rights, like all constitutionally guaranteed rights, are not absolute.
“It is to be noted that the protection of the rights and reputation of others is one instance where the right to freedom of expression can be curtailed. Expression can be restricted to protect the rights, reputation, or privacy of others.
“Where an expression is meant to disparage an individual or group, the law will not allow it. The law frowns upon any expression that casts aspersion on others in the name of constitutional freedom of expression. This is the rationale behind the derogation of fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” he said.
Justice Umar added: “The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed under our laws, provided that citizens are cautious of the reputation of others while expressing and disseminating their opinions.”
He noted that the DSS and its DG, in complaining to Meta Platforms that Sowore’s post violated Nigerian law, did not infringe his rights but only used the proper Facebook reporting channels.
“This court agrees with the submission of the first and second respondents that any action Facebook took is entirely under its own policies and independent judgment. Therefore, this court did not see how the freedom of expression or association of the applicant, under the circumstances presented, is infringed.”
On the third issue whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought the judge held that the reliefs, being declaratory in nature, require the applicant to establish them on the strength of his case.
“A careful perusal of the applicant’s deposition in the affidavit in support shows that he has failed to convince this court that his rights 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 holds. On the whole, I find no merit in this application, and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Umar said.
Following applications for costs by the lawyers for DSS, its DG Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), and counsel to Meta Platforms, Victoria Bassey, Justice Umar awarded N1.5 million in costs against Sowore, at N500,000 to each of the three respondents.