The Federal Government on Monday dropped Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation from the cybercrime charges filed against activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore.
The Abuja Federal High Court struck out the two companies following the prosecution’s decision to amend the charge, leaving Sowore as the only defendant in the suit.
Sowore was initially arraigned on December 2, 2025, alongside Meta and X in a charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, bordering on alleged cyberstalking.
The prosecution had accused Sowore of making posts on his verified social media accounts in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”
At the resumed proceedings before Justice Umar, the prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, informed the court that an amended charge filed on December 5, 2025, was ready to be read, adding that there was no objection from the defence.
Kehinde subsequently withdrew the earlier charge and applied for the names of Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corporation to be struck out as defendants in the case.
Justice Umar granted the application and ordered that both companies be removed from the charge.
In the amended charge, the Federal Government alleged that Sowore, on or about August 25, 2025, knowingly transmitted a message through his verified X account, @YeleSowore, which it claimed was false and capable of causing a breakdown of law and order.
The charge quoted a post allegedly made by Sowore, in which he accused President Tinubu of dishonesty during a visit to Brazil, an allegation the prosecution said amounted to cyberstalking.
The offence was said to be contrary to Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
When the amended charge was read in court, Sowore pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution then sought to open its case and present its first witness, but the move was opposed by Sowore’s counsel, Marshal Abubakar.
Abubakar argued that the amended charge was defective, stating that it failed to disclose the identity of the prosecution witness or attach any witness statement, thereby violating his client’s right to fair hearing.
He contended that the defence could not properly prepare without knowing the evidence and witnesses to be relied upon, describing the prosecution’s application as premature.
In his response, Kehinde dismissed the objection, arguing that the Constitution does not compel the prosecution to disclose the identity of its witnesses before trial, adding that the defence could request an adjournment for cross-examination.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Umar ordered the prosecution to serve the defence with the witness statement and adjourned the case till Thursday, January 22, 2026, for hearing.