A Prostrating 'Apostle' and The DSS's Memory Loss in Sowore's Trial

AprokoNation, gather 'round, for the theatre of the absurd has officially relocated to the Federal High Court. The case of the Federal Government (via the DSS) versus Omoyele Sowore, over his calling President Bola Tinubu a 'criminal', has delivered a courtroom drama so rich it rivals any Nollywood blockbuster. This is not just a trial; it is a masterclass in Nigerian political morality, or the spectacular lack thereof.

Here’s the breakdown, dripping with the irony that only our dear nation can produce:

Sowore’s lawyer, operating on the principle of 'what is sauce for the goose is jollof for the gander,' presented an unassailable exhibit: a video of an ambassador-designate, one Mr. Reno Omokri, categorically stating that President Tinubu was a 'known drug lord.' His defence is simple: if the man who made this very serious accusation has since been nominated and cleared as an Ambassador (a privilege requiring DSS security clearance, mind you!), then surely, the truth in his statement must be so undeniable that even the government has implicitly sanctioned it with a diplomatic pass.

And what was the DSS witness's reaction to the inquiry of why they cleared a man who called the President a 'drug lord'? A classic Nigerian response: 'I am not aware.' Ah, the selective memory of a government agency when confronted with inconvenient facts! The security services, whose job is to know everything, suddenly lose their database entries for high-profile nominees. You see, the difference between Mr. Omokri and Mr. Sowore is not the severity of their allegations, but the dexterity of their political U-turn, a move that comes with a handsome reward. Omokri, in a stunning display of political repentance, later 'discovered' his earlier claims were 'fallacious' and, according to him, even flew in from California to prostrate flat on the ground to apologise to the President. A truly Christ-like forgiveness story, where the reward for a retracted accusation is a ticket to a foreign mission.

The drama continued when Sowore’s defence tabled another video, this time featuring President Tinubu himself, pre-election, assuring Nigerians of their right to criticise and even insult him. The President made a public promise to uphold free speech, a commendable democratic stance. Naturally, when asked about this clip, the DSS agent, in another magnificent display of civil service amnesia, claimed he was 'unaware' the President made such a statement. The irony is thick enough to chew: the DSS is prosecuting a man for cyberstalking a statement its agent wasn't even aware the subject of the 'crime' had publicly endorsed protecting!

Commendably, the Judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, refused to be cowed by the prosecution’s objections and admitted both Omokri’s 'drug lord' video and Tinubu's 'insult me' video as exhibits. This is the court laying a massive, metaphorical 'Shege'** upon the attempt at selective justice.

It appears the Nigerian state operates on a simple, albeit bizarre, calculus: calling the President a 'drug lord' is a pathway to an ambassadorship (provided you 'prostrate' and recant), but calling him a 'criminal' is a direct route to a cybercrime charge. The truth, my people, is flexible; the political convenience of the moment is as solid as Aso Rock. We are watching history unfold, one hilarious and tragic courtroom admission at a time. This is not governance, it is pure, undiluted, state-sponsored Aproko.

AprokoNation, gather ‘round, because this whole court situation is serving premium yimu.

Forget the actual charges for a minute—"cyberstalking" is now just the fancy name for poor political timing. What this trial has definitively proven, thanks to the sheer brass neck of that DSS agent’s "I am not aware" mantra, is that the Nigerian State has officially formalized the Transaction of Truth.

This isn't just about Sowore calling the President a 'criminal.' The real tea is that the prosecution is struggling to maintain the delusion that justice is blind, when the entire nation just watched a man who called the same President a 'known drug lord' get rewarded with an international soft landing, provided he executed the perfect political prostrate-and-repent move.

Let’s be real. The DSS claiming "audio memory loss" when faced with video evidence of a future Ambassador's explosive claims, or the President's own free-speech promise, isn't incompetence. It's a calculated institutional lie. It’s the system confirming that the severity of the insult doesn't matter; what truly matters is the speed and sincerity of your subsequent political U-turn.

The Arguable Opinion: This trial isn't seeking to determine if Sowore's statement was truthful or defamatory; it is attempting to legally enshrine the principle that criticism is only a crime if you refuse the mandatory political apology/alignment package.

If Reno Omokri had stuck to his guns, he’d be sharing a jail cell or perhaps a cyberstalking charge. But because he performed the ultimate political pick me dance—flying in from California just to hit the floor—the state deemed the initial, far more serious allegation irrelevant. The DSS clearance, therefore, was not a validation of Tinubu's innocence, but an endorsement of Omokri's repentance.

So, when the DSS witness suddenly gets hit by institutional amnesia in court, they are merely acting out the core operational guideline: We only remember what serves the convenience of Aso Rock in this moment.

And that, my people, is why Justice Umar admitting those videos is the biggest Shege ever thrown at this selective justice narrative. He's basically telling the prosecution: "If we are going to talk about insults and clearance, we are taking the entire political transaction history, not just the convenient chapter."

The takeaway for Gen Z political commentators is clear: If you must drag a figure, ensure you have a highly lucrative retraction plan ready. Otherwise, your 'criminal' charge will stick, while the person who used a stronger word is chilling in a diplomatic mission, courtesy of the state’s short-term, convenient memory. This is not governance, it is pure, high-stakes political economics. And the exchange rate for 'truth' is constantly plummeting.