The case, which involves newly filed charges of forgery, defamation, and alleged incitement to mutiny, was slated for arraignment before Justice Emeka Nwite. However, the court was informed that the second defendant had not been served with the court summons.

The prosecuting counsel explained that efforts to serve the second defendant through substituted means, by publishing the summons, had not been successful, as the publication was not ready.

Justice Nwite consequently adjourned the matter until Sept. 15, for arraignment.

The fresh charge against Sowore and Sahara Reporters, filed earlier in August, relate to a series of reports published on Sahara Reporters about an alleged police promotion scandal and Sowore’s participation in protests by retired police officers demanding pension reforms.

The three-count charge reads:

Count One:
“That you Omoyele Sowore and Sahara Reporters on or about the July 30 2025 within the jurisdiction of this court did conspire between yourselves to commit a felony to wit: forgery, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(2)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

“That you Omoyele Sowore and Sahara Reporters on or about the July 30, within the jurisdiction of this court, forged a police wireless message purported to have been signed by the Principal Staff Officer to the Inspector-General of Police, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(2)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

“That you Omoyele Sowore on or about July 31 within the jurisdiction of this court, did intentionally post a fake police signal and other inciting materials on your Facebook page with the intention to incite members of the force and the general public to embark on a mutiny against the Federal Government and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 114 of the Penal Code Law.”

Speaking with journalists after the court session, counsel to Sowore, Mr Marshall Abubakar said that he would be challenging the competence of the charges, describing them as frivolous and unjustified.

He said that there was no basis for his client to enter a plea in a charge that was defective. (NAN) (www.nannews.ng)