On Thursday, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a fundamental rights suit filed by human rights activist Omoyele Sowore against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, and Meta Platforms Inc.

This is as the court presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar fined Sowore, the 2023 Presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), N1.5 million

Justice Umar, while delivering the judgment, ruled against all issues presented for determination by Sowore, describing the case as lacking merit and declining all the reliefs sought.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1887/2025, stemmed from the removal of a Facebook post made by Sowore on August 26, 2025, in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal,” as well as the deactivation of his account.

In the post, Sowore said, “This criminal actually went to Brazil to state that there is no more corruption in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!”

READ ALSO:

Sowore had argued that the removal of the post and the suspension of his account, allegedly at the instance of the DSS and its leadership, violated his constitutional rights to fair hearing, freedom of expression, and association.

However, Justice Umar held that the claim of breach of fair hearing was misplaced, noting that such a right applies strictly to proceedings before courts or legally established tribunals.

He stated, “The law is that, to seek to enforce the fundamental right to fair hearing provided under Chapter four of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the alleged violation must be in respect of proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law.

“There would be no case of infringement of the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution when the decision alleged to have violated one’s constitutional right to fair hearing is that of a non-judicial body.”

“In the instant case. The alleged violation of the right to fair hearing of the applicant (Sowore) was made against the respondents, which were not contemplated under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as explained by judicial authorities.

“In the light of the above, it is my holding here that fair hearing does not apply to the instant case.”

On the issue of freedom of expression and association, the court held that the actions of the DSS and Meta did not amount to a breach of Sowore’s rights.

Justice Umar noted that constitutional rights are not absolute and may be limited in certain circumstances, particularly where expressions could harm the reputation of others.

“It is to be noted that the protection of the rights and reputation of others is one of the instances where the right to freedom of expression can be curtailed.

“Expression can be restricted to protect the rights, reputation, or privacy of others. This is to say, where an expression is meant to disparage an individual or a group of individuals, the law will not allow it.

“This is to say, the law will frown at any expression that will cast aspersion on others in the name of expressing the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

“This is the rationale behind the derogation of the fundamental rights under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” he said.

The judge further held that the DSS acted within its rights by reporting the post through Facebook’s complaint mechanisms, adding that any action taken by Meta was based on its internal policies and independent judgment.

He said, “This court agreed with the submission of the first and second respondents that whatever action Facebook has taken is entirely done under its own policies and independent judgment.

“Therefore, this court did not see how the freedom of expression and or association of the applicant under the circumstances presented is infringed.”

On whether Sowore was entitled to the reliefs sought, the court ruled that he failed to prove his claims.

“A careful perusal of the deposition of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application shows the applicant has failed to convince this court that his rights as guaranteed under Sections 36(1), 39, and 41 have been or are likely to be threatened by the respondents.

“This court is of the firm view that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and so hold. On the whole, I find no merit in this application, and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Umar said.

The court subsequently awarded costs of N1.5 million against Sowore, with N500,000 each payable to the three respondent following applications by their legal representatives.