The Federal High Court in Abuja has thrown out a fundamental rights enforcement case filed by politician and publisher Omoyele Sowore against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, and Meta Platforms Incorporated.
Delivering judgment on Thursday, Justice Mohammed Garba Umar ruled against Sowore on all three issues identified for determination, refused the reliefs he sought, and dismissed the suit on the grounds that it lacked merit.
Sowore had approached the court in a case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1887/2025, challenging the removal of a Facebook post he made about President Bola Tinubu and the subsequent deactivation of his account.
He alleged that Meta acted on instructions from the DSS and its Director-General, describing the actions as unlawful.
The controversy stemmed from an August 26, 2025 Facebook post in which Sowore referred to Tinubu as a “criminal,” writing: “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”
In his suit, Sowore argued that taking down the post and disabling his account without prior notice violated his rights to fair hearing, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.
However, in addressing the first issue, Justice Umar held that the allegation of denial of fair hearing was wrongly directed at the DSS, its Director-General, and Meta. According to the judge, such a right applies strictly to proceedings before legally established courts or tribunals, not actions taken by non-judicial bodies.
He added: “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 is not applicable to the instant case.”
On the second issue, the court ruled that neither the DSS’s complaint about the post nor Meta’s decision to remove it and deactivate the account constituted a breach of Sowore’s rights to expression and association under Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution.
Justice Umar emphasised that constitutional freedoms are not absolute and may be limited, particularly to safeguard the rights and reputation of others.
He said: “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 group of individuals, the law will not allow it.
READ ALSO: DSS Drags Sowore, X, Meta to Court Over Posts Against Tinubu
“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 fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” he said.
He further noted that the DSS and its Director-General acted within proper bounds by using Facebook’s reporting mechanism, while Meta independently enforced its own policies.
The judge stated: “This court agrees with the submission of the first and second respondents that whatever action Facebook has taken was 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 the final issue regarding entitlement to reliefs, the court held that Sowore failed to sufficiently prove his claims, noting that declaratory reliefs must be backed by credible evidence.
Justice Umar said: “A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application shows that 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 I so hold. On the whole, I find no merit in this application, and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Umar said.
Following applications for costs by counsel to the DSS and its Director-General, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), and Meta’s lawyer, Victoria Bassey, the court ordered Sowore to pay N1.5 million in total—N500,000 to each of the three respondents.