The procedure adopted by the Department of State Services (DSS) in announcing the suspension of the cyberbullying case against The post Trial suspension: Withdraw charge against Sowore, lawyer tells DSS appeared first on Tribune Online .
The procedure adopted by the Department of State Services (DSS) in announcing the suspension of the cyberbullying case against the African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, was faulted on Monday.
Mr Olumide Fusika, SAN, the lead counsel to Sowore, knocked the procedure while addressing a press conference over the development.
It would be recalled that the Director-General of the DSS, Tosin Ajayi, had made public through a statement on Sunday that the agency would suspend the criminal prosecution of Sowore, who was accused of describing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a criminal, until after the 2027 presidential election.
But while the press briefing lasted, Fusika said the defence only learnt of the development through media publications.
According to Fusika, “We got to know of these developments the same way you all got to know of it through publication. We never got any such press statement.”
The SAN insisted that the DSS approach is strange to legal practice, adding that if a prosecuting counsel intends to seek an adjournment on a date already fixed in court, the proper procedure is to notify opposing counsel ahead of time, not issue a press statement.
The senior lawyer maintained that the wording of the DSS statement created a wrong impression that the security agency, not the court, determines when a trial proceeds.
In his words: “The statement gives the impression that the DSS is the one in control of the court. It determines when the court sits and when the court does not sit.”
He urged the agency to engage proper communication professionals to avoid damaging Nigeria’s judicial institutions in the eyes of the international community.
As to the reason provided for the adjournment, that Sowore should be allowed to fully participate in the upcoming elections without hindrance, Fusika said that while Sowore may disagree, he personally considers it a well-grounded reason that portrays the DSS as a reasonable organisation not interfering in politics.
But the SAN suggested that having acknowledged the political nature of the case, the DSS should take further steps.
Fusika said, “Based on that understanding, I would respectfully suggest to the DSS to do either of two things. Instruct counsel to withdraw the charge completely. If that is not going to be done, the alternative is to hand it over to the office of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation.”
The SAN maintained that the statutory mandate of the DSS is internal security and intelligence gathering, not criminal prosecution, and that prosecuting cases like that of Sowore and former presidential candidate, Prof. Pat Utomi, drags the institution into political matters and erodes public trust.
He reiterated that, “The duty of the DSS is to gather investigation and hand it over to the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, not to jump into charging to court anyone that makes any statement against the President.”
While adding that the defence will not oppose the application for adjournment when it is formally brought before the court, Fusika called on the DSS DG to preserve the integrity of the agency by refraining from prosecuting critics of the government.
