The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and Amnesty International (AI) have asked President Bola Tinubu to withdraw the charge filed against Omoyele Sowore, X and Facebook.
The organisations, in a joint letter dated September 20, 2025, also expressed concerns about state security agencies’ increasing use of court cases to harass and intimidate Nigerians.
SERAP and AI had categorised the charge filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) against Sowore and the two social media platforms linked to his alleged “anti-Tinubu” posts as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), an alleged legal tactic used to silence critics.
SERAP and Amnesty International stressed that the use of SLAPPs generates a chilling effect that inhibits the enjoyment of human rights and the circulation of ideas and information.
Apart from calling on the President to direct the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), to immediately withdraw the charges, the organisations also want the AGF to draft and present anti-SLAPP legislation to the National Assembly.
They argued that this move would protect Nigerians from the misuse of the justice system and safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression, described as a cornerstone of any democratic society.
In the letter signed by SERAP’s deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, and AI Nigeria’s director, Isa Sanusi, they maintained that public officials, due to their positions, must tolerate a higher degree of criticism.
The suit against Sowore, which includes five counts under the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024 and the Criminal Code Act, was filed after the activist reportedly refused to delete posts deemed critical of President Tinubu.
According to the organisations, this is not the first time Sowore has been targeted, adding that the DSS, which brought the charges on behalf of the Federal Government, has a recent history of using such legal manoeuvres.
They cited a similar case against Professor Pat Utomi, a former presidential candidate who was sued in May 2025 for allegedly attempting to illegally usurp executive powers by forming a shadow government.
The organisations gave the Tinubu-led administration a 7-day ultimatum to act, threatening further legal action before the ECOWAS Court of Justice if the charges were not withdrawn.
They further stated, “Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and full enjoyment of this right is central to achieving individual freedom and developing democracy. It is not only the cornerstone of democracy, but indispensable to a thriving civil society.
“Any restrictions on human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, must meet the conditions of legality, serve as one of the legitimate purposes expressly provided for in the Nigerian Constitution and human rights treaties, and must be necessary and proportionate to that purpose.
“Nigerian and regional human rights courts have consistently held that politicians should expect far greater criticism of their actions and functioning than ordinary individuals. These courts and other human rights mechanisms have renounced defamation as a legal tool to suffocate dissent.
Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Committee, the independent expert body that monitors state compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in its General Comment No. 34, states that in circumstances of public debate, ‘the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high.
“According to the Committee, ‘the mere fact that forms of expression are considered insulting to a public figure is insufficient to justify the imposition of penalties.
“The Committee also stated that, ‘all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.
“In addition, the Committee has called on states, including Nigeria, to decriminalise defamation because criminal penalties are always disproportionate punishments for reputational harm.
“The Committee has stated that defamation laws must ensure they do not serve, in practice, to contravene the rights to freedom of expression and information,” they stated.
