The prosecution in the trial of the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, has faulted the insistence by the defence that the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi, must appear personally in court to testify as a defence witness.
At Friday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, argued that it was wrong for Sowore’s counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, to insist that Ajayi must personally appear in court in compliance with a subpoena issued to him.
In support of his argument, Kehinde cited the Supreme Court decision in Ishaq v. Soniyi (2002) ALL FWLR (Pt. 498) 347 at 373, where the court held that where a subpoena is directed to a named public officer, it would be absurd to insist that only the named officer should appear in compliance with the subpoena.
The prosecution counsel recalled that the Attorney-General of the Federation, who led the prosecution team on July 28, 2026, had also made the same submission, namely that the defence could not insist on the personal appearance of the DSS Director-General where another appropriate official could represent him.
Kehinde said it was on the basis of that understanding that the parties agreed that a DSS official would be nominated to represent the Director-General.
He told the court that, in keeping with the understanding, a DSS official had been designated and was present in court, ready to testify.
The prosecution further argued that the DSS Director-General had no personal interest in the case, having acted only in his official capacity.
Kehinde said it would be impracticable for the Director-General to personally attend every proceeding involving the DSS, particularly as the Service has cases pending before different divisions of the Federal High Court.
Earlier, Olumide-Fusika had argued that the prosecution had repudiated the understanding reached by the parties that a DSS official could appear on behalf of the Director-General by allegedly failing to produce the designated official on the previous adjourned date.
He maintained that since the subpoena and hearing notice were issued in the name of the DSS Director-General, he was required to appear in person.
The defence counsel explained that the decision to subpoena the Director-General in his personal capacity followed the testimony of the second defence witness, Uwem Davies, a DSS official.
According to Olumide-Fusika, Davies repeatedly indicated during his testimony that certain questions could only be answered by the Director-General.
He also argued that the understanding reached with the intervention of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, broke down after the designated DSS official failed to appear in court as expected.
Olumide-Fusika told the court that although he was informed that the hearing notice had been served on the DSS, there was no indication that the Director-General was in court.
He maintained that the court’s order and hearing notice were directed at the DSS chief and insisted that Ajayi should appear personally.
The defence counsel also argued that the Attorney-General had not filed any process in the matter, adding that statements made when he appeared before the court should not be relied upon.
Kehinde, however, maintained that the court record showed that what was required was for a DSS official to appear and confirm that the nominated officer was in court.
He said the prosecution was ready to proceed with the case.
Following the arguments, Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the matter until October 6, 2026, for ruling on whether the DSS Director-General can be compelled to personally appear and testify as a defence witness over actions taken by the Service.
Sowore is standing trial over allegations arising from posts he published on X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook in August 2025, in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” and accused him of misrepresenting the level of corruption in the country.
Discussion0