On September 6, Nigeria’s State Security Service formally petitioned X Corp to delete a tweet by activist Omoyele Sowore and deactivate his account. The agency described the post as false, harassing, and capable of provoking unrest, warning that failure to comply within 24 hours would trigger “far-reaching measures”.
The tweet in question, posted on August 25, accused President Bola Tinubu of lying during a visit to Brazil when he claimed corruption had ended under his administration. The DSS argued the post violated Nigeria’s Criminal Code, Cybercrimes Act 2025, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, branding it as inciting violence and damaging the country’s image abroad.
Late on September 7 Sowore issued a defiant statement affirming he would not delete the tweet. He described the DSS letter as lawless and disgraceful and confirmed that X had notified him but had not removed the content.
His legal team, led by human rights lawyer Tope Temokun, responded formally to X. They rejected the DSS demand as unlawful, unconstitutional, and lacking legal foundation. They stressed that only a court order – not a security agency – can legally restrict free speech under Nigeria’s Constitution and international human rights law.
Amnesty International and CSOs such as SERAP have condemned the DSS action. Amnesty called it outrageous and an abuse of power violating domestic and international law. SERAP urged the agency to retract its threats and emphasized that any restriction must meet the criteria of legality, necessity and proportionality.
X Corp has not publicly agreed to the DSS demand. The platform told Sowore that it had received the request but had taken no action at this time. X informed him of his rights to legal counsel or to engage rights groups and cited its transparency practices and policy regarding such requests.
This episode raises urgent questions. What are the limits of free speech under the Tinubu administration informally enforced by the DSS rather than arriving through legal channels? Does the state’s use of anti-cybercrime and terrorism laws align with recognized human-rights standards? Is it appropriate to leverage a security agency’s broad mandates to silence dissent?
For Sowore this is a familiar battleground. His legal team recounts multiple arrests, passport seizures, court prosecutions, and harassment tied to his activism since 2019. He regards this escalation as part of a canonical campaign to intimidate critics both inside and outside Nigeria.
For digital platforms the stakes are equally profound. If a private company complies based on an executive directive rather than a court order it risks becoming an instrument of state censorship. If it resists, it may face sanctions, bans, or legal risk, echoing the years-long block on Twitter during the previous administration.
The DSS action forces a critical choice about Nigeria’s democratic direction. Will the state tolerate criticism even when harsh? Or will it respond with surveillance and suppression?
In the eyes of many legal experts and civil society activists freedom of speech must be upheld especially when citizens speak inconvenient truths. The words of a critic may sting but they are vital for accountability. As Sowore himself has said deleting the tweet is one option he refuses to take.
