In a bold move to defend free speech and challenge what he describes as unconstitutional censorship, Omoyele Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in Nigeria’s 2023 general election, has initiated two fundamental rights lawsuits at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The lawsuits target the Department of State Services (DSS), as well as global social media giants Meta (the parent company of Facebook) and X Corp (the parent company of X, formerly Twitter). The legal actions, announced on Tuesday by Sowore’s legal team through a statement signed by Tope Temokun, aim to address what the team describes as a concerted effort to suppress Sowore’s voice and, by extension, the voices of millions of Nigerians who rely on social media platforms to express their views.
The lawsuits come at a critical juncture in Nigeria’s political landscape, where concerns about shrinking civic space and increasing state control over digital platforms have been on the rise. Sowore, a well-known activist, journalist, and founder of the online news platform Sahara Reporters, has long been a vocal critic of the Nigerian government. His legal team argues that the DSS, in collaboration with Meta and X Corp, has engaged in actions that undermine the constitutional rights of Nigerians to free expression, as guaranteed under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The statement from Sowore’s legal team underscores the broader implications of the case, framing it as a battle for the survival of democracy and free speech in Nigeria.
Background: Sowore’s Activism and the Context of the Lawsuits
Omoyele Sowore has been a prominent figure in Nigeria’s political and activist circles for decades. As the founder of Sahara Reporters, he has used investigative journalism to expose corruption and hold public officials accountable. His activism, particularly through the #RevolutionNow movement, has positioned him as a thorn in the side of successive Nigerian administrations. Sowore’s outspoken criticism of government policies and his calls for systemic change have often put him at odds with state authorities, including the DSS, Nigeria’s primary domestic intelligence agency.
The 2023 presidential election, in which Sowore ran as the AAC candidate, was marked by intense political competition and widespread debates about governance, electoral integrity, and freedom of expression. Social media platforms, particularly Facebook and X, played a significant role in shaping public discourse during the election period. However, these platforms have also faced accusations of enabling censorship, either through their own content moderation policies or under pressure from state actors. Sowore’s lawsuits allege that both Meta and X Corp have complied with demands from the DSS to restrict his accounts, thereby stifling his ability to communicate with the public and engage in political activism.
The timing of Sowore’s legal action is particularly significant, as it comes on the heels of a separate legal move by the DSS. Just hours before Sowore filed his lawsuits, the DSS instituted a five-count charge against him at the same Federal High Court in Abuja, listing Meta and X Corp as co-defendants. While the details of the DSS’s charges remain unclear, Sowore’s legal team suggests that the agency’s actions are part of a broader strategy to silence dissent and control the narrative on social media platforms.
The Core of Sowore’s Lawsuits: Defending Free Speech
At the heart of Sowore’s lawsuits is the assertion that the DSS has overstepped its legal authority by attempting to censor his social media activity. According to the statement released by his legal team, the DSS has no constitutional or statutory power to dictate what Nigerians can say or share on social media platforms. The team argues that such actions violate Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, which explicitly guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of expression without interference.
The lawsuits also take aim at Meta and X Corp, accusing them of complicity in the DSS’s alleged censorship efforts. Sowore’s legal team contends that by complying with unlawful demands to restrict or suspend his accounts, these global tech companies have effectively become tools of repression. The statement emphasizes that Meta and X Corp cannot claim neutrality while allowing their platforms to be used to suppress political criticism and activism. “When they bow to unlawful censorship demands, they become complicit in the suppression of the struggle for liberty,” the legal team asserts.
The lawsuits seek several key declarations from the Federal High Court, including:
A declaration that the DSS lacks the legal authority to censor Nigerians on social media platforms. Sowore’s team argues that no security agency, regardless of its influence or power, can unilaterally suspend or infringe upon the constitutional rights of citizens to express themselves freely.
A ruling that Meta and X Corp must not allow their platforms to be used as tools of repression. The lawsuits call on the court to hold these companies accountable for any actions that undermine free speech, particularly when such actions are taken in response to pressure from state actors.
A recognition that Sowore’s rights, and by extension the rights of all Nigerians, must be protected against unlawful censorship. The legal team frames this as a matter of principle, arguing that the outcome of the case will have far-reaching implications for the future of free expression in Nigeria.
The statement concludes with a call to action, urging journalists, human rights defenders, and ordinary Nigerians to stand in solidarity with Sowore. “Today it is @YeleSowore; tomorrow it may be you,” the statement warns, emphasizing that the fight against censorship is not just about one individual but about safeguarding the democratic rights of all citizens.
The Broader Implications: Free Speech in a Digital Age
Sowore’s lawsuits raise critical questions about the role of social media platforms in democratic societies and the extent to which state actors can influence or control online discourse. In Nigeria, where social media has become a powerful tool for political mobilization, activism, and public debate, the ability to speak freely online is seen as essential to the health of democracy. However, the increasing use of state power to regulate or suppress online content has sparked concerns about the erosion of civic space.
The legal team’s statement highlights the global dimensions of the issue, noting that the actions of Meta and X Corp have implications beyond Nigeria. By complying with censorship demands from authoritarian regimes, these companies risk setting a precedent that could undermine free speech in other parts of the world. The lawsuits challenge Meta and X Corp to uphold their stated commitments to free expression and resist pressure from state actors seeking to silence dissent.
The case also underscores the tension between national security and individual rights. The DSS, like many security agencies around the world, often justifies its actions by citing the need to maintain public order or protect national security. However, Sowore’s legal team argues that such justifications cannot override the constitutional protections afforded to citizens. The team’s statement warns that allowing security agencies to dictate who can speak and what can be said online risks turning Nigeria into a “digital dictatorship.”
The DSS’s Counter-Move: A Five-Count Charge
The DSS’s decision to file a five-count charge against Sowore, Meta, and X Corp adds another layer of complexity to the case. While the specifics of the charges have not been fully disclosed, they are likely to center on allegations related to Sowore’s online activities, possibly including claims of incitement, defamation, or spreading misinformation. The inclusion of Meta and X Corp as defendants suggests that the DSS may be seeking to hold these platforms accountable for hosting content deemed objectionable by the agency.
This legal maneuver by the DSS can be seen as a preemptive strike against Sowore’s lawsuits, aimed at shifting the narrative and portraying him as a threat to public order. However, Sowore’s legal team views the DSS’s actions as further evidence of the agency’s attempts to suppress dissent. By targeting both Sowore and the platforms he uses to communicate, the DSS appears to be sending a broader message to activists and ordinary Nigerians about the consequences of speaking out online.
The Role of Meta and X Corp: Balancing Neutrality and Responsibility
Meta and X Corp find themselves in a precarious position as defendants in both Sowore’s lawsuits and the DSS’s charges. As global companies operating in multiple jurisdictions, they face the challenge of navigating complex legal and political landscapes. On one hand, they are expected to comply with local laws and regulations in the countries where they operate. On the other hand, they have a responsibility to protect the rights of their users, particularly when it comes to freedom of expression.
Sowore’s legal team argues that Meta and X Corp have failed in this responsibility by complying with what they describe as unlawful censorship demands. The team points out that these companies have the resources and influence to push back against state pressure but have instead chosen to suspend or restrict Sowore’s accounts. This, the team argues, makes them complicit in the erosion of democratic freedoms in Nigeria.
The lawsuits also raise questions about the broader policies and practices of social media companies. Content moderation decisions, whether driven by internal policies or external pressure, often have significant consequences for users, particularly those engaged in political activism. The case could set a precedent for how social media platforms handle similar situations in other countries, particularly in regions with authoritarian governments or weak democratic institutions.
The Call to Action: A Fight for Principle
Sowore’s legal team has framed the lawsuits as a broader struggle for the soul of Nigeria’s democracy. The statement calls on “all lovers of freedom, journalists, human rights defenders, and the Nigerian people” to stand firm in the face of censorship. By emphasizing that the fight is about principle rather than personalities, the team seeks to rally public support and draw attention to the stakes involved.
The reference to a “digital dictatorship” is particularly striking, as it underscores the potential consequences of unchecked state power in the digital realm. In a country where social media has become a lifeline for political engagement, particularly among young people, the outcome of Sowore’s lawsuits could shape the future of online activism and free speech in Nigeria.
The Road Ahead: Legal and Political Implications
As the lawsuits move forward, they are likely to attract significant attention both within Nigeria and internationally. The Federal High Court in Abuja will play a critical role in determining whether Sowore’s claims of unconstitutional censorship hold merit and whether the DSS’s actions constitute an overreach of authority. The court’s rulings could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between state agencies and citizens, as well as for the responsibilities of global tech companies operating in Nigeria.
The case also has the potential to galvanize public opinion and spark broader debates about the state of democracy in Nigeria. Sowore’s history as an activist and his ability to mobilize supporters through platforms like Sahara Reporters and the #RevolutionNow movement suggest that he will use the lawsuits to draw attention to broader issues of governance and accountability.
For Meta and X Corp, the lawsuits present both a legal and reputational challenge. How they respond to the allegations of complicity in censorship will likely influence public perceptions of their commitment to free speech. The companies may also face pressure to clarify their content moderation policies and their processes for handling government requests, particularly in countries with contentious political environments.
Conclusion
Omoyele Sowore’s fundamental rights lawsuits against the DSS, Meta, and X Corp represent a significant moment in the ongoing struggle for free speech in Nigeria. By challenging what he describes as unconstitutional censorship, Sowore is not only defending his own rights but also advocating for the rights of all Nigerians to express themselves freely online. The lawsuits highlight the growing tension between state power and individual freedoms in the digital age, as well as the complex role of global tech companies in navigating these conflicts.
As the case unfolds, it will serve as a litmus test for Nigeria’s commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law. For Sowore and his supporters, the fight is about more than just one man’s access to social media—it is about ensuring that Nigeria does not slide into a “digital dictatorship” where dissent is silenced, and voices are suppressed. The outcome of the lawsuits could shape the future of free expression in Nigeria and serve as a warning to other governments and tech companies about the consequences of undermining democratic freedoms.
With the Federal High Court set to hear both Sowore’s lawsuits and the DSS’s charges, all eyes will be on Abuja as this legal battle unfolds. For now, Sowore’s call to action resonates: “Today it is @YeleSowore; tomorrow it may be you.” The fight for free speech in Nigeria is far from over, and the outcome of this case could define the boundaries of digital freedom for years to come.