Sowore Challenges DSS DG Ajayi to Appear in Court as Cyberbullying Trial Deepens

The ongoing cyberbullying trial involving African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore has taken another turn, with the activist challenging the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi, to personally appear in court and testify as a defence witness.

Speaking in Abuja on Friday after proceedings, Sowore said his legal team would pursue every available legal avenue to compel Ajayi’s appearance, arguing that the DSS Director General possesses information relevant to issues at the centre of the case.

Sowore urged Ajayi to “toe the path of honour” by respecting the subpoena and appearing before the court rather than relying on other officials or representatives.

The case stems from Sowore’s description of President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal,” a characterization that forms part of the allegations against him.

Why Sowore Wants the DSS Director General in Court

Sowore maintained that the defence has the right to determine how it presents its case and which witnesses it considers necessary.

He argued that Ajayi is particularly important to the defence because, as DSS Director General, he is allegedly the custodian of information that could shed light on issues arising from the proceedings.

“This is our witness,” Sowore said, stressing that the prosecution should not determine how the defence presents its evidence.

“Ajayi is our witness. He is not the prosecution’s witness. So the prosecution cannot be doing our case for us. That is dangerous,” he added.

The dispute over Ajayi’s appearance has therefore become a significant procedural issue in the trial, with the defence pressing for the DSS chief to be brought before the court personally.

Alleged Dispute Over Earlier Understanding

Sowore further alleged that the prosecution had initially reached an understanding with the defence concerning Ajayi’s appearance but subsequently withdrew from that position.

“What they have now come to say is that whatever understanding we had with the Attorney General has been repudiated,” he said.

According to Sowore, the prosecution had previously argued that it was not responsible for producing a particular witness, but the defence is now insisting that Ajayi’s appearance is necessary because it has designated him as its witness.

“The last time, they said it was not their responsibility to bring a real witness to court. Now we are making it their business to bring a real witness to court, and they are saying that person cannot come,” he said.

These claims have not been independently established in court and represent Sowore’s account of the dispute.

Sowore Accuses AGF of Blocking Ajayi’s Appearance

Sowore also alleged that the intervention of the Attorney General of the Federation was intended to prevent the DSS Director General from personally appearing before the court.

“They brought the Attorney General to come and blackball us into not bringing in the DG because they knew if the DG comes, we would expose him for who he is,” Sowore alleged.

The allegation raises a broader question over the extent to which the prosecution can challenge a defence decision to call a particular witness.

For the defence, the issue is not simply whether Ajayi can provide evidence, but whether the court should allow the defence to determine the witnesses it considers necessary to establish its case.

Warning Over Possible Compulsion

Sowore warned that continued resistance to Ajayi’s appearance could result in more forceful legal measures.

“I mean, Ajayi will be sued. That is dangerous. They will bring him in handcuffs to this court to come and testify, you know, because he is our witness,” he said.

The statement was made in the context of Sowore’s argument that the court can ultimately compel the attendance of a witness where legally justified. Whether such an order is made remains a matter for the court.

Defence Raises Procedural Concerns

Sowore also questioned the court’s handling of the application concerning Ajayi’s appearance.

He said the defence should have been permitted to formally file its response, cite additional legal authorities and present evidence challenging the prosecution’s position.

“The judge is saying that he will rule next Tuesday as to whether the DG should come,” Sowore said.

“But what is a little bit sketchy for me is that the judge will not allow us to officially file our own opposition to the matter.”

The court is expected to rule on the question of whether the DSS Director General should appear in the proceedings.

Until that ruling is delivered, the central dispute remains unresolved: whether the defence can compel the appearance of the country’s intelligence chief as a witness and, if so, what evidence he may be required to provide.

The proceedings have consequently placed the roles of the defence, prosecution, DSS leadership and the court under heightened scrutiny as the trial continues.