Federal High Court Dismisses Omoyele Sowore’s Fundamental Rights Suit Against DSS and Meta Over Account Deactivation

Justice Mohammed Umar dismisses Omoyele Sowore’s rights suit against the DSS and Meta, ruling that freedom of expression does not protect disparaging speech.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 3, 2026, 4:46 AM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from THISDAYLIVE

Legal Defeat for Sahara Reporters Publisher

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters and a former presidential candidate, against the Department of State Services (DSS) and Meta Platforms Incorporated. Delivering the judgment on Thursday, Justice Mohammed Umar ruled that the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1887/2025, lacked merit. The court determined that Sowore was not entitled to the declaratory reliefs sought and ordered him to pay N500,000 each to the DSS, its Director-General, and Meta Platforms, totaling N1.5 million in legal costs.

Background of the Dispute

The legal battle stemmed from an incident on August 26, 2025, when Sowore published a Facebook post referring to President Bola Tinubu as a "criminal" following the President's statements in Brazil regarding corruption in Nigeria. Shortly after the post, Meta deactivated Sowore's account and removed the content. Sowore argued through his counsel, Marshall Abubakar, that Meta acted on the direct instructions of the DSS, thereby violating his constitutional rights to a fair hearing, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.

Fair Hearing and Non-Judicial Bodies

In resolving the first issue of the case, Justice Umar clarified the scope of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution regarding the right to a fair hearing. The judge held that this right specifically applies to proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law. Because the DSS and Meta are non-judicial bodies, their administrative actions—such as reporting a post or deactivating an account—do not fall under the legal framework of a "fair hearing" violation. Consequently, the court ruled that fair hearing protections were not applicable to the private policy decisions of a social media platform or the reporting actions of a security agency.