A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement action filed by activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, and Meta Platforms Incorporated, the parent company of Facebook.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar, who resolved all issues raised in the suit against Sowore, concluding that the application lacked merit and could not be sustained under the law.
The court also refused all reliefs sought by the applicant.
The case arose after Sowore challenged the removal of a Facebook post he published on August 26, 2025, in which he described President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal” while criticizing comments made during an official trip to Brazil.
He also alleged that his Facebook account was deactivated following a complaint reportedly made by the DSS to Meta.
According to Sowore, the actions taken against him amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights.
He argued that the takedown of his post and suspension of his account were carried out without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
He insisted that this breached his rights to fair hearing, freedom of expression, and freedom of association as guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution.
However, the court rejected these arguments in strong terms. On the first issue, Justice Umar held that the claim of fair hearing was fundamentally flawed.
The judge explained that the constitutional provision on fair hearing applies strictly to proceedings involving courts or tribunals established by law, not private platforms or administrative complaints.
In this context, the court stated that the actions complained of by Sowore did not involve any judicial or quasi-judicial process.
Therefore, the protection under Section 36(1) of the Constitution could not be invoked.
The court emphasized that non-judicial bodies such as DSS or Meta cannot trigger fair hearing obligations in the manner alleged by the applicant.
On the second issue, the court considered whether the actions of the DSS and Meta violated Sowore’s rights to freedom of expression and association.
Justice Umar acknowledged that these rights are guaranteed under Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution.
However, he stressed that such rights are not absolute and may be restricted under certain conditions.
The judge explained that freedom of expression does not include the right to make statements that unjustly damage the reputation of others.
He noted that Nigerian law, under Section 45 of the Constitution, allows limitations on fundamental rights in the interest of public order, morality, and the protection of the rights of other individuals.
In addressing the complaint further, the court found that the DSS did not unlawfully interfere with Sowore’s expression.
Instead, the security agency merely utilized official reporting channels provided by Facebook to flag content it considered harmful or offensive under applicable standards.
Justice Umar further held that Meta Platforms Incorporated acted independently in deciding to remove the post and deactivate the account.
According to the court, the decision was based on Meta’s internal policies and community guidelines rather than direct enforcement instructions from Nigerian authorities.
The court therefore concluded that there was no credible evidence showing that Sowore’s constitutional rights had been breached by the DSS or Meta.
It held that both entities acted within their legal and operational boundaries.
On the third issue, the court examined whether Sowore was entitled to the reliefs he sought.
Justice Umar stated that the reliefs were declaratory in nature, meaning the burden of proof rested heavily on the applicant to establish a clear violation of rights.
After reviewing the affidavit evidence and arguments presented, the court found that Sowore failed to prove that any of his constitutional rights under Sections 36(1), 39, or 41 had been violated or threatened.
The judge held that the applicant’s claims were not supported by sufficient legal or factual foundation.
Consequently, the court ruled that Sowore was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
The suit was therefore dismissed in its entirety for lacking merit.
In addition, following applications for costs by counsel representing the DSS and its Director-General, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), and counsel to Meta Platforms Incorporated, Victoria Bassey, the court awarded a total cost of ₦1.5 million against Sowore.
The sum is to be shared equally among the three respondents.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces the legal position that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected in Nigeria, it is subject to lawful limitations, particularly where reputation, public order, and platform policies are involved.
About The Author
