DSS Has No Investigation Report On Sowore’s Alleged Cyberbullying Of Tinubu, Witness Tells Court | Sahara Reporters

The witness also admitted that the DSS did not invite or investigate any of the individuals who commented on Sowore’s post, including Joe Igbokwe, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and an official of the Lagos State Government.

An investigating officer of the Department of State Services (DSS), Michael Jego, has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the agency did not prepare an investigation report before demanding that African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore retract a social media post about President Bola Tinubu.

Jego, who testified on Monday as a witness representing the Director-General of the DSS, Oluwatosin Ajayi, made the disclosure during cross-examination in the ongoing trial of Sowore over allegations of criminal defamation and cyberbullying of the President.

The witness also admitted that the DSS did not invite or investigate any of the individuals who commented on Sowore’s post, including Joe Igbokwe, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and an official of the Lagos State Government.

During the proceedings, Jego gave inconsistent responses to questions from defence counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), and described the summary of the witness statement, marked Exhibit XYZ, as a preliminary report.

He also told the court that he could not recall several details of the investigation, including whether Sowore had been invited to explain the social media post before the agency issued a letter demanding its retraction.

Jego appeared before the court following a ruling by the presiding judge, Justice Umar Mohammed, preventing the DSS Director-General from appearing in person to testify in the case.

During cross-examination, Olumide-Fusika questioned Jego about the sequence of events leading to the letter issued to Sowore in September 2025, demanding that he retract the post and issue a public apology.

The defence counsel presented the witness with a comment made by Igbokwe on August 26, 2025, before the DSS issued the letter on September 7. The letter was delivered to Sowore on September 9, 2025.

Jego confirmed that the agency had seen Igbokwe’s comment, marked Exhibit F, before issuing Exhibit E, the letter demanding that Sowore retract the post or face consequences.

The witness also confirmed that the letter demanded an immediate and unequivocal retraction of the statement, an apology published in at least two national newspapers and broadcast on two television stations, and a retraction given prominence comparable to that of the original post.

However, when questioned about the investigation that preceded the letter, Jego confirmed that no investigation report had been prepared before it was issued.

He said he was part of the team that investigated the matter and that the committee subsequently drafted the letter to Sowore.

The defence also questioned whether the DSS had invited Sowore to explain the post before issuing the letter and whether investigators had monitored the publication between the date it appeared online and the date of the agency’s demand.

Jego said he could not recall some of the specific steps taken during the investigation, including whether Sowore had been invited to explain the post.

The witness told the court that the DSS considered Sowore’s post capable of provoking public unrest and contributing to a breakdown of law and order.

However, when Olumide-Fusika asked him to identify specific comments in the publication that posed a serious threat to national security, Jego could not point to any beyond comments containing insults directed at Sowore.

The defence also questioned the agency’s handling of comments posted in response to the publication, including those critical of the President.

Jego confirmed that the DSS monitored comments both supporting and opposing the post. However, he said the investigation did not establish the identities of users whose comments were considered potentially threatening to public order.

Olumide-Fusika challenged the agency’s decision to focus on Sowore rather than investigate the individuals who made comments allegedly capable of threatening public order.

In response, Jego maintained that the DSS had considered the overall public reaction to the post.

The defence also questioned the witness about the agency’s request to X, formerly Twitter, to remove the publication on the grounds that it could threaten national security and cause a breakdown of law and order.

When asked whether there had been any breakdown of law and order since the post was published, Jego answered that there had been none.

Olumide-Fusika also challenged the basis for the DSS’s conclusion that Sowore’s post was false, questioning whether the investigating officer had watched the video in which the President allegedly made the statement attributed to him.

Jego said he could not recall whether Tinubu had made the statement as described in Sowore’s post.

He added that the letter demanding a retraction had been issued by a committee of which he was a member.

When pressed on how the agency reached its conclusion, the witness maintained that the President’s statement had been taken out of context but could not recall the precise words used by Tinubu.

During the proceedings, a video clip showing the President making a comment in Brazil that there was no corruption in Nigeria was played in open court.

The video was played as the defence challenged the witness’s position that the President had been quoted out of context.

The proceedings focused on the basis for the DSS’s demand that Sowore retract the publication, the steps taken by investigators before issuing the letter and the agency’s assessment of the alleged threat to public order.