Counsel to the Department of State Services (DSS), Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, on Friday told a Federal High Court in Abuja that a volte-face by the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, on a witness to subpoena is absurd and unprecedented.
Sowore has opened his defence on the allegations of cyberbullying arising from posts he published on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook in August 2025, in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” and accused him of misrepresenting the level of corruption in the country.
Following the appearance of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, on a subpoena requiring the Department of State Services (DSS) Director-General, Tosin Ajayi, to appear, Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, agreed with the AGF that the appearance of any other senior official of the DSS would do.
On Friday, however, the same Olumide-Fusika made a dramatic volte-face, telling the court that the DSS boss must appear personally in court to testify as a defence witness.
Responding, prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, argued that it was wrong for Sowore’s counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, to insist that the DSS Director General must personally appear in court in compliance with a subpoena issued to him.
Kehinde, in support of his argument, cited the Supreme Court decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR (Pt. 498) 347 at 373, where the court held that where a subpoena is directed to a named public officer, it would be absurd to insist that only the named officer is to appear in due compliance with the subpoena.
The prosecution counsel recalled that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), who led the prosecution team on July 28, 2026, also made the same submission, namely that the defence could not insist on the personal appearance of the DSS boss where another appropriate official could represent him.
Kehinde said it was on the basis of that understanding that the parties agreed that an official of the DSS would be nominated to represent the Director General.
He told the court that, in keeping with the understanding, a DSS official had been designated and was present in court, ready to testify.
The prosecution further argued that the DSS Director General had no personal interest in the case, having acted only in his official capacity.
Kehinde said it would be impracticable for the Director General to personally attend every proceeding involving the DSS, particularly as the Service has cases pending before different divisions of the Federal High Court.
He said: “This is a case that is over a year old. The prosecution closed its case since March 16, 2026. It is not an act of charity on the part of the defence to argue that, at a 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,” he added.
Following the arguments by both parties, Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the matter until October 6, 2026, for ruling on whether the DSS Director General can be compelled to personally appear and testify as a defence witness in relation to actions taken by the Service.
