Sowore Case: DSS Should Withdraw Suit Or Hand It To AGF, Says Olumide-Fusika

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, has urged the Department of State Services (DSS) to withdraw its case against Omoyele Sowore or hand over the prosecution to the Attorney-General of the Federation, arguing that the security agency should not be drawn into political disputes.

Olumide-Fusika, who spoke in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Friday, said the DSS should recognise that it is a state institution and not an organ of any political party or an individual occupying political office.

His comments followed the DSS’ decision to seek an adjournment of Sowore’s case, which arose from allegations linked to comments he made about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The senior lawyer said the DSS’ stated reason for seeking an adjournment was “thoughtful”, although he described the move as coming late.

“That is the reason why I won’t get dragged into that. Whether you have a case to answer or not is for the court to determine. And to the best of my knowledge, such an application had been made to the court before I came in as counsel and the court had rejected the no-case application.

“So, I mean, that is the state of play in the case.”

Olumide-Fusika said he had advised Sowore that the reason given by the DSS for its recent position appeared reasonable on the surface, particularly its desire not to be seen as interfering in politics.

“When we last discussed it, it was that way. Even though we take serious exceptions to some of the things that they’ve gone about it, based on my own counselling to him, I believe, and he accepted, that we think that the reason given, because it was in his press statement, the reason given by the DSS would, on the surface of it, seem thoughtful.”

However, he said the DSS should take the next step by reconsidering its role as a state institution.

“The only thing that I know that we have said is that that thoughtfulness, this late display of thoughtfulness, should then be taken further to look at the whole thing all over again by them and begin to recognise that they are a state institution, not a PA to any political personality, whereby PA, I mean, personal assistant to any political personality, not an organ of any party.

“So, and then think about the importance of that institution and not get dragged into politicians’ conflict amongst politicians, because this is what, you know, it will seem to be.”

The senior advocate also criticised the manner in which the adjournment was communicated, arguing that parties in a pending case should not give the impression that they can unilaterally determine what happens in court.

“Secondly is that by the press statement you give the impression, you know, that you’re in control of the court.

“I mean, if you want to adjourn the case, if for any reason, you know, there’s a reason to adjourn cases and all that, you know, you inform the other side. We are thinking that also, so that when this case is next to come up, we’re going to be asking for an adjournment for this reason or that reason, and both of you can then agree that, okay, we’re not opposed.

“It’s not by way of one party issuing a press statement and giving the impression that we are adjourning it. You know, it’s just the party before the court, really.

“So, you cannot be the only editor. I mean, how can you state your intention without saying, well, if they give it as if it’s given? You know, and this is one of the things, this kind of impression that makes people lose confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

“Parties before the court thinking, oh, so is there communication behind the back? You know, why are they behaving as if we are in control of this process and we can then issue orders, so to speak?

“We cannot even order, saying that this is what is going to happen.”

Olumide-Fusika stressed that his public comments were not an argument about the merits of the case but an intervention aimed at ensuring that the DSS does not become entangled in political disputes.

“Those are the points that we have made by way of public intervention on the matter, not on whether there’s merit or no merit in the case. We will present our own, whatever, but we think that they should take it further, so that they don’t drag that institution into the muddy water of politics, as they have done, which is what they have done, and they are realising it now. That’s why I said thoughtful. That’s why I used the word thoughtful.”

Asked whether the DSS’ decision indicated that the case was not a political witch hunt, Olumide-Fusika declined to make a definitive assessment of the matter.

He, however, pointed out that politicians routinely trade insults and make offensive comments against one another, arguing that such conduct is not peculiar to Sowore.

“If you Google now, just Google your friend, you know, you’ll see that on a daily basis, you know, somebody called one politician, another politician names, you know, vulgar abuse and things like that. It’s nothing exceptional.

“Even our president, the President of Nigeria, you know, has engaged in those kind of things. So, as I was coming here, I was still reading some statements that he made.

“Why pick on one? If you want to pick on somebody, so that is the only thing you can say about targeting, you know. So, it has been happening from time immemorial, even anywhere where you’re going to watch the politicians abusing themselves, you know.

“So, what’s the issue? And we don’t have a king. In those days, when you abused the king, your head would be off immediately, because this is a democracy. So, we need to learn that.”

The SAN maintained that if the state believes it has a case against Sowore, the matter should be determined in court.

“But that is not the issue here. If you believe you have a case, they are there for the court, and we are there to defend ourselves. They are there to say it’s not the issue. That’s the issue.”

Olumide-Fusika said the bigger question was whether the DSS should have become involved in the matter in the first place.

“Was all of this necessary in the first place? You see, my intro was that I thought this is a little thoughtfulness on the part of the DSS. Why drag yourself into something that doesn’t concern you, really, in my view?

“Like I said, you are not a DG of the DSS. It’s not a personal assistant to the President. The DSS as an institution is not an organ of any political party.

“So, when we make these moves, you know, we should think deeply about them before going ahead. That’s what I’ve said here.”

He further said the DSS should either withdraw the case or allow the Attorney-General of the Federation to take responsibility for the prosecution.

“But it’s better late than never, that’s what we say. You know, if you look at the press statement, and it is my personal view, and I’ve consulted my clients too, that the reason they’ve given is thoughtful, even though coming late.

“They should now look at it fully, and if they will not withdraw the case, the least they can do to completely take themselves out of it is to simply hand it over to the Attorney-General of the Federation, who should remit the case to prosecute, rather than jumping into anything that doesn’t concern them.”

On whether calling a public official a “criminal” could cross the line from vulgar abuse into a criminal offence, the lawyer declined to discuss the specifics of his client’s defence, stressing that the matter is already before the court.

“We’ve started presenting our defence in court.”

He maintained that his legal team has a strong defence but would not disclose its details publicly.

“I think you should wait and watch what will happen in court. I’m not going to go into it.

“You understand that too, as a colleague, that I cannot go into the merits of the case. We started our defence, and the stage we are in now is that, okay, they say, well, given the political season, we think we should de-emphasise on it and then wait until after the election.

“All I can assure you is that we are fighting it. We have a very robust defence in the case, and I think that if they don’t listen to us, and if they don’t agree that the case should be withdrawn, we’re going to learn a lot from the defence we’re going to present.

“But beyond that, I can’t go beyond that to be discussing, you know, whether it is a, whatever the defence, and I’m not going to reveal it. You know, what our defence will be at the end of the day. So, I’m not going to help them to prepare for anything.”

The SAN also used the interview to call for greater institutional neutrality among Nigeria’s security agencies, including the police and the DSS.

“All that is important for us to learn at this stage is that institutions like the police, the DSS, the DMI and all that should understand that these are Nigerians.

“They don’t serve any individual, any politician, any current holder of political power, so as to turn their institution into, you know, a fighting organ for that person or whatever.

“They have to fight for Nigeria, not for any individual. That’s just what, and I think that by their statements, that’s the point I’m making.

“They are becoming a little bit more thoughtful about, you know, what they did, and, you know, if you want to say, I commend them for that. It’s never late, and, you know, it’s as simple as that. I don’t want to say more than that, you know, for now.”

Addressing the broader issue of freedom of speech and where the law draws the line between free expression and unlawful conduct, Olumide-Fusika said Nigerians must understand the distinction between private disputes and the role of state institutions.

“Well, what I would say to that is that we shouldn’t believe us if we don’t know about history. You know, there’s always a provision if, between individuals, if, for instance, I go out of this place making statements that are not true about you, you have the right to sue me for libel.

“It is not for the state to, of course, say you have the cyber law or whatever. I can give you examples of what cyberbullying is that is happening.”

He cited sustained online attacks against a woman whose husband had died, saying such conduct should also attract attention from law enforcement agencies if evidence of criminality exists.

“How long ago did Mubarak die? Probably about three or four years ago. Since that time, the wife has been constantly, and you see it everywhere, constantly being bullied. ‘You killed your husband, you did this, you did that.’

“That is what is called cyberbullying. But the police, the DSS, whatever, they won’t see that to go into it and say, stop. That is what is called cyberbullying.

“This lady has been persistent for over three years now, attack, attack, attack, attack, no evidence, no nothing. I don’t want to go into the merits of that, but if you want to have evidence, go to the police and give the police the evidence, so that they can prosecute her.

“But every day, that is what is called cyberbullying. The DSS will not see that, the police will not see that, and they say they are doing their work or their duties.

“But let one political person be abused, you know, they jump into it and begin to say they are prosecuting.”

He argued that laws should be applied consistently and not selectively to favour particular citizens.

“What we are saying is that every law that we make in Nigeria will somehow find a way to thwart the purpose, use it for wrong things and all that, you know, promotes the interest of one citizen.”

Olumide-Fusika concluded by reiterating his position that Nigeria’s security institutions must remain focused on protecting the country rather than becoming involved in political battles.

Boluwatife Enome 

Follow us on: