Courtroom Erupts in Laughter as DSS Tenders Tinubu’s ‘No More Corruption’ Speech in Sowore Trial

Proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday took an unusual and dramatic turn when laughter erupted in open court during the playback of a video speech by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, tendered as evidence by the Department of State Services (DSS). The moment, which briefly halted proceedings, occurred in the ongoing cyberstalking trial involving human rights activist and SaharaReporters publisher, Omoyele Sowore.

The incident happened during the resumed hearing before Justice Mohammed Umar, as the prosecution opened its case against Sowore. Counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, called the service’s first witness, Cyril Nosike (PW-1), an operative of the DSS. In his testimony, Nosike told the court that he obtained screenshots of social media posts allegedly made by Sowore on his verified X (formerly Twitter) handle and Facebook page, in which the activist described President Tinubu as “a criminal.”

To further support its case, the prosecution tendered a video recording of a speech delivered by President Tinubu on August 26, 2025, during an official state visit to Brazil. According to the DSS, the video was relevant in establishing the context of Sowore’s alleged cyberstalking remarks against the President.

As court officials played the video, the courtroom initially remained calm and attentive. However, the atmosphere changed abruptly when President Tinubu, speaking in the footage, declared that he had “fought corruption to a standstill” and that “there was no corruption in Nigeria any longer.” Almost instantly, lawyers, court officials, journalists, and other observers burst into laughter, openly expressing disbelief at the statement.

The laughter reportedly lasted several minutes and was loud enough to disrupt proceedings, forcing a brief pause in the trial. The reaction underscored widespread public scepticism about the administration’s anti-corruption claims and highlighted the tense political undertones surrounding the case.

Beyond the dramatic interruption, the hearing also featured further exchanges between the prosecution and the defence. The DSS alleged that Sowore was using his mobile phone to send messages while court proceedings were ongoing, an action considered inappropriate during a sitting. Sowore firmly denied the allegation, insisting that he was not using his phone as claimed. To maintain order and decorum, Justice Umar directed Sowore to hand over his phone to his counsel for the remainder of the session.

The prosecution went on to tender several documents, including screenshots and messages allegedly posted by Sowore on his X and Meta (formerly Facebook) platforms. These exhibits were admitted in evidence by the court. However, Sowore’s lead counsel, Marshal Abubakar, informed the court that the defence would reserve its objections to the admissibility and probative value of the exhibits until the stage of final written addresses.

Abubakar also requested an adjournment to enable the defence team to properly study the witness’s statement and other documents earlier served on them by the prosecution. The request was granted, and Justice Umar adjourned the case to January 27, 2026, for the cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness and continuation of hearing.

Outside the courtroom, the incident quickly gained traction on social media and public forums, with many Nigerians interpreting the laughter as a symbolic expression of frustration and cynicism over corruption and governance in the country. Critics argued that the DSS’s decision to tender a political speech as evidence blurred the line between political rhetoric and legal proof, while others described the move as embarrassing and counterproductive.

Supporters of the government, however, attempted to contextualise the President’s statement, arguing that Tinubu’s remarks in Brazil referred specifically to reforms in the foreign exchange regime and the reduction of corruption in accessing forex, rather than an absolute claim that corruption had been eradicated nationwide.

Regardless of interpretation, the courtroom episode has added a dramatic and controversial layer to an already high-profile trial. As the case continues, it is expected to further test the boundaries between free expression, political criticism, and the state’s use of security agencies in prosecuting dissent, while also keeping public attention firmly fixed on the broader issues of governance and accountability in Nigeria.