Human rights advocate and publisher of SaharaReporters, Omoyele Sowore, has urged Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss criminal defamation, forgery of a police wireless message, and cybercrime charges filed against him by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun. Sowore’s legal team, led by counsel Abubakar Marshal, contends the charges are “defective, incompetent, and an abuse of prosecutorial powers,” in violation of the Nigeria Police Act and Section 174(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
During Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel Barrister Madaki informed the court that SaharaReporters, as the second defendant, had not yet been served, despite court approval for substituted service. The process of publishing the charges in national newspapers remains pending, prompting the prosecution to request additional time to complete service.
In response, Marshal emphasized that a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the charges must be heard before any arraignment can occur. He denounced the case as a “charade” lacking legal merit, and urged that the charges be struck out. Meanwhile, the prosecution has confirmed receipt of the objection but continues to push for Sowore’s arraignment.
Following arguments from both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the case until September 15, 2025, specifically for arraignment.
Speaking to journalists outside the courtroom, Marshal lambasted the police and the IGP for what he described as an unnecessary drain on public resources. He remarked:
“As usual, the police, the Inspector General, came to court today to waste our time, taxpayers’ money, and to embark on privileges and waste of public resources. In continuation of the charade that they started against Mr. Sowore since 1989, they filed a three-count amended charge, accusing Mr. Sowore of publishing a police wireless report.”
Marshal argued the real motive behind the charges is Sowore’s involvement—along with retired police officers—in protests demanding better welfare for police personnel. He added:
“They also accused him of making publications about ‘the mistress’. Three different charges were filed by officers and lawyers in the Inspector General’s office. We have informed the court that those charges are incompetent, unlawful, and are mere attempts at wasting our time, their time, and, more importantly, taxpayers’ money on frivolities.”
He further asserted that the IGP lacks constitutional or statutory authority to pursue personal interests through the office, and detailed:
“The Police Act clearly forbids any police officer, serving or retired, from using the instrumentalities of the police to fight a personal vendetta or as a means of settling personal scores … Section 174(3) of the Constitution stipulates that any charge filed in court must be in compliance with equity and the interest of justice. This particular requirement of Section 174(3) is lacking in the charge filed by the police.”
Describing the charges as an effort to “stifle and shrink” civic space in Nigeria, Marshal continued:
“There is no basis for entering a plea to a defective charge such as the one we have in court today. We have informed the court that we will not take any plea on this inherently defective charge. These charges, as provided under the Constitution, must be quashed. The court must strike out the charge without further wasting Nigerian taxpayers’ money.”
Finally, he implored the court to mandate disciplinary action against the IGP, stating:
“We have also urged the court to note that the Police Regulations and the Police Act … clearly prohibit and recommend disciplinary measures against any officer who uses the instrumentality of office to pursue and prosecute personal grievances. Such an officer must be recommended to the appropriate authority for sanction, because such conduct amounts to indiscipline and violates the Police Code. Therefore, we are urging the court to mandate the police lawyer, who is also a serving police officer, to recommend to the appropriate authority that the IG and other officers who have abused these provisions, as demonstrated in this charge, be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. This is what the law requires.”
