HURIWA faults Sowore’s remand, demands withdrawal of cybercrime charges

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has strongly criticized the decision of a Federal High Court in Abuja to revoke the bail of human rights activist and former African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, and remand him in custody pending the continuation of his trial.

The rights advocacy group described the court’s action as excessive and troubling, arguing that the development raises serious concerns about freedom of expression, judicial discretion, and the application of Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act.

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court had on Monday ordered Sowore’s immediate remand at the Kuje Correctional Centre following the revocation of his bail. The activist is expected to remain in custody until June 24, 2026, when proceedings in the case resume.

Reacting to the development, HURIWA said the entire legal process surrounding the case portrays Nigeria negatively and reinforces concerns about the shrinking civic space for dissenting voices.

The group renewed its call on the Department of State Services (DSS) to discontinue the prosecution, insisting that the charges against Sowore stem from the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.

Sowore is facing a two-count charge filed by the DSS under provisions of the Cybercrimes Act. The charges relate to social media posts made in August 2025 in which he allegedly referred to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal.”

The DSS subsequently accused the activist of cyberstalking and criminal defamation, arguing that the posts violated provisions of the amended Cybercrimes Act, 2024.

Sowore pleaded not guilty to the charges and has consistently maintained that his comments were protected speech.

In May 2026, Justice Umar declined an application seeking the dismissal of the charges, ruling that the prosecution had established a prima facie case requiring the defendant to enter his defence.

READ ALSO: Nigeria facing security crisis, HURIWA warns, calls for emergency measures

Subsequently, on June 5, Sowore’s legal team withdrew from the matter following a judicial directive for daily trial hearings. The activist thereafter elected to represent himself and filed an application seeking the judge’s recusal from the case on grounds of alleged bias.

However, on June 16, after Sowore failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, the prosecution described his absence as an attempt to delay proceedings. The court consequently revoked his self-recognition bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

HURIWA argued that the court’s decision to revoke Sowore’s bail was harsh and unnecessary, especially in light of claims that he had formally communicated his inability to attend the hearing due to travel-related constraints.

According to the rights group, Sowore had reportedly written to the court through the Chief Registrar explaining his absence and requesting understanding from the court.

National Coordinator of HURIWA, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, stated that courts frequently grant adjournments in matters involving other defendants, including those facing serious economic and corruption-related allegations.

The organization maintained that a single adjournment could have been granted before resorting to the drastic measure of revoking bail and ordering detention.

The group further cited reports indicating that Sowore had attended an earlier scheduled hearing only to discover that the presiding judge was unavailable. According to HURIWA, the activist subsequently informed the court registry of his travel plans before the warrant was issued.

Beyond the immediate case, HURIWA renewed its criticism of certain provisions of the Cybercrimes Act, arguing that they pose a threat to press freedom, civic engagement, and constitutional rights.

The group specifically highlighted Sections 24 and 58 of the legislation, contending that several terms used within the law remain vague and susceptible to broad interpretation.

According to HURIWA, concepts such as cyberstalking, harassment, annoyance, false information and breakdown of law and order lack sufficient legal clarity and could be exploited to target journalists, activists, and government critics.

The organization pointed to previous concerns raised by legal experts, civil society groups and international observers regarding the application of the law.

HURIWA noted that the ECOWAS Court of Justice had previously ruled against aspects of the original Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act, describing it as arbitrary and repressive.

The rights group also referenced concerns raised by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), the National Human Rights Commission and several foreign diplomatic missions, which have warned against the misuse of cybercrime legislation to restrict free expression.

HURIWA urged the DSS to concentrate more resources on combating terrorism, violent extremism and other national security threats rather than pursuing cases arising from political speech and public commentary.

The group argued that elected officials possess sufficient communication platforms and media structures to respond to criticism without resorting to criminal prosecution.