Sowore Insists DSS DG Ajayi Must Appear Personally as Court Fixes October 6 Ruling

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed Tuesday, October 6, 2026, for a ruling on whether the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi, must personally appear in court to testify in the ongoing cyberbullying case against African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore.

Sowore is standing trial over his alleged description of President Bola Tinubu as a criminal, a case that has now produced a separate courtroom dispute over the identity and appearance of a defence witness.

At the centre of the latest legal battle is a subpoena specifically naming Ajayi and the defence’s insistence that the DSS Director General must appear personally rather than send another officer to testify on his behalf.

The defence has argued that Ajayi’s personal appearance is necessary, while the prosecution maintains that a designated DSS officer can provide evidence on behalf of the agency.

Defence Accuses Prosecution of Changing Position

During Friday’s proceedings, defence counsel Adeyinka Olumide Fusika, SAN, accused the prosecution of abandoning an understanding previously reached over the appearance of the DSS Director General.

Olumide Fusika told Justice Mohammed Umar that the prosecution could not continue to “approbate and reprobate” on the issue after an earlier arrangement had reportedly been communicated to the court.

According to the defence, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, had personally initiated an arrangement under which another DSS officer would testify on behalf of Ajayi.

The defence argued that the arrangement was subsequently abandoned by the prosecution.

“My Lord, that was an understanding between gentlemen, ordinarily binding. That understanding was repudiated by the person charged with the prosecution of this case at the last adjourned date,” Olumide Fusika submitted.

He argued that because Ajayi was specifically named in the subpoena, the DSS chief should now appear personally.

“He was named specifically to come, and the subpoena still names him specifically. So he must come now, having repudiated the understanding,” he said.

The defence further argued that if the prosecution objected to Ajayi’s personal appearance, it should formally approach the court with an application instead of simply producing another DSS officer.

“If he has an objection to the person's coming, he should file his application,” Olumide Fusika said.

Why the Defence Wants Ajayi in Court

The defence also drew the court’s attention to the evidence of a previous witness, Owen Davies, who testified as DW2.

According to Olumide Fusika, Davies’ testimony was instrumental in the decision to issue the subpoena to the DSS Director General.

“My Lord, I call Your Lordship's attention to the testimony of Mr Owen Davies, which necessitated the issuance of the subpoena,” he told the court.

The defence also maintained that the Attorney General, despite appearing in the matter during proceedings on August 3, 2026, had not filed any processes before the court in relation to the dispute.

Olumide Fusika said the subsequent attempt to replace the subpoenaed DSS chief with another officer had created the controversy now before the court.

Prosecution Opposes Personal Appearance

Prosecution counsel Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, urged the court to reject the defence’s demand for Ajayi’s personal appearance.

Kehinde argued that Ajayi had been summoned in his official capacity and that another authorised DSS officer could provide the relevant evidence.

He maintained that the mere fact that a public official is named in an official capacity does not automatically mean that the individual must personally appear in every proceeding involving the institution.

According to the prosecution, requiring the DSS Director General to personally attend every case involving the agency would be impractical.

“He does not have a personal interest in this matter. There is no personal interest whatsoever,” Kehinde submitted.

He therefore asked the court to permit the DSS officer already present to testify.

“If they are not willing to go ahead with the witness that is before Your Lordship, the officer who is here to perform the duty that was served, I will make that application again,” he said.

Judge Examines Earlier Court Record

The defence rejected the proposed substitution, insisting that the prosecution could not replace the individual specifically named in the subpoena without first formally resolving the matter before the court.

Justice Umar subsequently examined the record of the earlier proceedings to determine what had actually been agreed by the parties.

After reviewing the record, the judge noted that it contained an indication that an officer would testify on behalf of the DSS Director General and that the arrangement had been agreed to by the defence.

Olumide Fusika acknowledged the contents of the record but maintained that the prosecution had subsequently departed from the understanding.

According to the defence, that change in position prompted it to serve the DSS Director General directly with a hearing notice.

The defence described the appearance of another DSS officer in place of Ajayi as unacceptable, arguing that the individual named in the subpoena should be the person required to testify.

October 6 Ruling to Determine Next Step

With both sides maintaining opposing positions, Justice Umar adjourned the matter until Tuesday, October 6, 2026, to rule on whether DSS Director General Oluwatosin Ajayi must personally appear as a witness.

The ruling could determine whether the prosecution can proceed with the DSS officer already in court or whether the agency’s Director General will be required to personally appear before the Federal High Court.

The dispute over Ajayi’s testimony has consequently become a significant procedural issue within the wider case against Sowore, with the defence insisting that the subpoena must be enforced as issued and the prosecution maintaining that the DSS can designate an authorised officer to represent the agency’s position.