A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday rejected the request of the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in next year’s election Omoyele Sowore to compel the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS) Tosin Ajayi to appear in person in court to testify as his (Sowore’s) witness.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore over his August 2025 published posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook in which he described President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a ‘criminal’ and accused him of lying about the level of corruption in the country.
The defendant who is currently conducting his defence had applied for a subpoena to be issued and served on the director general of the DSS to appear in person in court and testify as his third witness.
In a ruling yesterday Justice Mohammed Umar upheld the argument of the prosecuting lawyer Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) that it was not necessary for the boss of the DSS to attend court in person since the defendant only wanted him to speak on the official act of his agency.
The judge said the issued subpoena was on an official act of the DSS adding that the expected testimony was not personal to the DG.
He agreed with Kehinde that any other official of the DSS could appear to give evidence on the agency’s behalf.
Shortly after the ruling Sowore’s lawyer Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN) called the defence’s third witness Michael Jego an investigator with the DSS.
Kehinde had argued on October 2 that it was wrong for Sowore’s lawyer Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN) to insist that the boss of the DSS must attend court in person to testify as a subpoenaed witness of the defence.
To support his position Kehinde cited a Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR part 498 page 347 at 373. – where it was held that where a subpoena is directed to a named official it would be absurd to insist that only the named officer was to appear in compliance with the subpoena.
The lawyer recalled that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) attended court on July 28 leading the prosecution’s team to make the same point that it was wrong for the defence to insist that the boss of the DSS must testify as its witness in person.
He said it was based on that understanding that the parties agreed that an official of the DSS should be nominated to stand in for their boss.
Kehinde also told the court that in fidelity to that understanding an official of the DSS was designated for that purpose.
The prosecuting lawyer said the said official was present in court and was ready for the business of the day.
He added that the DSS’ DG has no personal interest in this case. He acted in an official capacity noting that since the DSS had cases in various divisions of the FHC it was practically impossible to expect the DG to attend all proceedings.
Kehinde said: ‘This is a case that is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case on March 16 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defence to argue that at one point it agreed that an official of the DSS should come but now it is insisting on the DG alone.
‘The decision as to who should attend court is at the discretion of the court not that of the defence. An official of the DSS is competent to give evidence in place of the DG.’
The court adjourned the further hearing in the case till October 26.