Calls For Tinubu’s Overthrow: DSS Drags Suspect To Court

The Department of State Services (DSS) has arraigned a man identified as Paul Jibrin Oweleke before the Federal High Court in Lagos.

Naija News reports thT Jibrin Oweleke was dragged to court over allegations that he used social media to call for a military coup to remove President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from office.

The suspect was arraigned before Justice Akintoye Aluko on a two-count charge bordering on alleged cybercrime and the transmission of messages said to be capable of inciting public disorder.

At the hearing, DSS counsel, Michael Bajela, told the court that the prosecution had filed a two-count charge against Oweleke. Bajela requested that the charges be read to enable him to take his plea.

The charges were subsequently read, and Oweleke pleaded not guilty to both counts.

The DSS alleged that the defendant, through his social media platform known as “Oweleke TV,” published messages and broadcasts calling on the military to overthrow the Tinubu administration and replicate the political developments witnessed in Burkina Faso.

The DSS said the messages were subversive and intended to incite members of the public, cause disaffection and undermine law and order in the country.

Bajela told the court that Oweleke allegedly, on or about May 23, 2025, knowingly transmitted messages and broadcasts through his social media handle, “Oweleke TV,” which the prosecution described as subversive.

According to the prosecution, the messages incited Nigerians and called for a military coup to remove Tinubu in a manner similar to events in Burkina Faso, with the intention of causing disaffection and a breakdown of law and order.

The prosecutor also told the court that Oweleke knowingly transmitted messages through the same social media platform that bullied, threatened or harassed President Tinubu, thereby placing the President and the office of the President in fear of death, violence or bodily harm.

The DSS pointed out that the alleged offences contravened Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024, and is punishable under the same provision and contrary to Section 24(2)(a) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024, and punishable under Section 24(2)(c)(i) of the Act.

However, the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

Following the plea, Bajela asked the court to fix a date for trial and remand the defendant to correctional custody, pending the determination of the case.

Counsel for the defendant, however, informed the court that he had filed a motion seeking his client’s bail and had served the application on the prosecution.

While stating that he had no objection to the fixing of a trial date, defence counsel said he was prepared to move the bail application if permitted by the court.

Responding, Bajela acknowledged receipt of the application but told the court that it had been served on him shortly before proceedings commenced.

The prosecution said he required time to study the application and file an appropriate response.

After listening to both parties, Justice Aluko adjourned the matter until June 16, 2026, for the hearing of the defendant’s bail application.