Human rights activist and publisher of SaharaReporters, Omoyele Sowore, has instituted a ₦5 billion lawsuit against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, Tosin Ajayi, a deputy director of the agency, Benjamin Bulus, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), over an alleged assault and forcible removal from the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The suit, filed on October 13, 2026, is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2480/2026. It challenges the legality of an alleged operation by DSS operatives at the court premises on June 22, 2026.
Sowore, who contested the presidency under the African Action Congress (AAC), is seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights. He wants the court to declare that the alleged assault, intimidation, forcible removal and detention violated his constitutional rights to personal liberty and human dignity.
Follow PenTalk News
Get breaking news, important updates and the latest stories directly on your phone.
According to the court documents, the incident occurred after Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered Sowore’s remand at the Kuje Correctional Centre. The order was reportedly pending the hearing and determination of his application seeking a stay of the decision revoking his bail and the bench warrant issued against him.
Sowore alleged that while he was waiting for correctional officers to arrive and implement the remand order, armed DSS operatives, including hooded personnel, entered the fourth floor of the court building.
He claimed that the operatives assaulted him, forcibly removed him from the area and took him against his will to the basement of the court complex using elevators designated for judges of the Federal High Court.
The activist further alleged that he sustained injuries during the incident.
He argued that the court’s remand order did not give security personnel the authority to assault him, use excessive force or subject him to degrading treatment within the court premises.
The suit is asking the court to determine whether the operatives acted beyond the scope of the judicial order and whether their alleged actions breached his fundamental rights.
Ajayi and Bulus were named as respondents, with Sowore alleging that the deputy director led the operation. The Attorney-General of the Federation is also listed among those being sued.
Video footage allegedly recorded with Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses is expected to form a significant part of Sowore’s evidence in the case.
According to the court processes, the recording is intended to document the events at the court complex and support his account of the alleged confrontation with DSS operatives.
Sowore maintains that the footage could help establish how the incident unfolded and whether the officers acted outside the authority provided by the remand order.
The documents indicate that the recording has been presented for the court’s consideration, subject to the applicable legal requirements concerning admissibility, authenticity and evidential value.
The court will determine the weight to attach to the footage as part of its consideration of the dispute.
Sowore’s action relies on Sections 34 and 35 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended, which safeguard human dignity and personal liberty.
He contends that the alleged assault, intimidation, forcible removal and detention violated the protections guaranteed under those provisions.
The suit also challenges the argument that a judicial remand order could provide legal justification for the alleged treatment. Sowore maintains that the execution of a court order must remain within the limits prescribed by law and cannot be used to justify conduct that infringes constitutional rights.
He is seeking declarations on the legality of the operation and the responsibilities of the DSS, its leadership, the Attorney-General and the deputy director named in the case.
The activist is also requesting injunctive and consequential orders, alongside any additional relief the court considers appropriate.
As part of the reliefs sought, Sowore is asking the Federal High Court to award him ₦5 billion in aggravated damages over the alleged assault, abduction, humiliation, intimidation and infringement of his fundamental rights.
The claim seeks to establish legal accountability for the actions allegedly carried out by DSS operatives during the June 22 incident.
Sowore argues that the alleged conduct raises serious concerns about the exercise of state power, particularly when security personnel operate within the premises of a court.
The case also brings into focus the limits of security agencies’ authority when enforcing judicial orders and their obligation to respect constitutional protections.
The allegations have yet to be determined by the court, and the filing of the suit does not, in itself, establish liability on the part of the respondents.
The new lawsuit also refers to an earlier confrontation between Sowore and DSS operatives at the Federal High Court in Abuja on December 6, 2019.
During proceedings before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, DSS operatives attempted to rearrest the activist in connection with treason-related charges arising from his involvement in the #RevolutionNow protests.
The incident attracted public criticism and raised concerns about the conduct of security personnel within court premises.
Sowore subsequently pursued legal action against the DSS and obtained a judgment awarding damages against the agency.
His lawyer, Peter Femi Joseph of FEMJOE & Associates, reportedly stated that the DSS had not complied with the monetary award made by Justice Egwuatu in the earlier case.
The latest lawsuit brings renewed attention to questions surrounding accountability for alleged rights violations by security operatives and the enforcement of court judgments against government institutions.
However, the present case is separate from the earlier proceedings and specifically concerns the alleged events of June 22, 2026.
Sowore Seeks Legal Accountability
In his application, Sowore maintains that security agencies must operate within the limits of the Constitution and cannot rely on national security considerations, executive authority or ongoing judicial proceedings to justify violations of fundamental rights.
He is asking the Federal High Court to examine the legality of the DSS operation, determine whether the alleged actions violated his constitutional protections and establish whether the respondents bear legal responsibility.
The outcome of the case will depend on the evidence presented and the court’s determination of the issues raised in the suit.
