Quirky Activism: As Sowore Rejects the ‘Tout’ Label

By Louis Achi

By cavalierly weaponizing freedom of expression and deploying a nimble asymmetric warfare strategy against perceived opponents, irascible human rights activist and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore has stomped on many toes.

But there are moments when a seemingly ordinary confrontation reveals a more far-reaching question about public character, democratic culture and the difficult business of living by the principles a folk professes – in effect, the moral test of political language. The trending altercation involving Sowore, and a lawyer, Barrister Yakubu, at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, October 19, 2026, succinctly encapsulates one such moment.

The immediate dispute was over a word. “Tout”. A lawyer identified in media reports as Barrister Yakubu allegedly called out Sowore as a tout, triggering an angry reaction from the activist, who demanded the lawyer withdraw what he considered an insult. In a video of the confrontation that went viral, Sowore was heard protesting: “Why did you call me a tout? What have I done to you? You have to withdraw that insult.”

He went further, insisting the lawyer had no right to insult him and arguing that a legal practitioner should know better than to engage in such conduct within a courtroom environment. The exchange attracted the attention of Sowore’s supporters and quickly became another episode in the public drama surrounding the activist’s ongoing case in court over social media posts in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal”.

Sowore had on August 25 and 26, 2025 made posts on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts where he referred to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “criminal”.

Apparently uncomfortable with Sowore’s posts, the Department of State Services (DSS) extended several appeals to Sowore, begging him to pull down his posts. Sowore, who is both an activist and a politician, fired back that it was well within his fundamental human rights to call anybody, President Tinubu inclusive, any name he so desired.

The DSS followed up with a letter to Meta Corp, owners of the social media platforms, informing the corporation that Sowore’s posts had contravened Nigeria’s cybercrime laws. In turn, Meta Corp notified Sowore of the DSS complaint.

Responding, Sowore doubled down on his posts. He vowed never to pull down his posts on Tinubu. For effect, the politician shared the DSS letter to Meta Corp, and ended up calling their bluff.

At the expiration of a seven-day legal notice to Sowore, the DSS approached a Federal High Court in Abuja to help resolve the matter. The crux of the suit by the DSS was for the court to determine if it was okay for anybody to call the President “a criminal.”

Among other issues, the DSS informed the court that Sowore published false and defamatory information, cyberbullied, and cyberstalked, in breach of Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act and Criminal Code Act. On January 28, 2026, the legal fireworks began at the court with the DSS presenting its first witness. At the close if its testimony, Sowore raised a fundamental rights application. He told the court that the matter violated his fundamental rights to freedom of expression.

However, after a series of legal tackles between Sowore and the DSS, Justice Umar resolved all three issues for determination against Sowore. He held that Sowore’s suit lacked merit and that claims of this nature did not fall under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure. The court also found no legal backing for the claim that the DSS unlawfully forced Meta’s hand under existing state-action frameworks.

The court dismissed the suit entirely and ordered Sowore to pay a N1.5 million fine. After losing out, Sowore raised another matter: he held that the DSS matter lacked substance and filed a no case submission. However, the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Garba Umar, on May 8, 2026, dismissed Sowore’s no-case submission. He ruled that the prosecution established a prima facie case against Sowore, and ordered the politician to enter his defence.

Dissatisfied, Sowore, on May 20, 2026, wrote the Chief Judge, alleging bias against him by Justice Umar. He demanded that the trial judge recuse himself. The Chief Judge responded that there was no reason for the judge to recuse himself, and ordered Justice Umar to continue Sowore’s case.

Shortly after, indications emerged that Sowore wasn’t ready to open his defence. His failure and that of his legal team to appear in court forced Justice Umar to revoke his bail and send him to Kuje Correctional Centre. After Sowore’s return from Kuje Correctional Centre, and had apparently exhausted all legal means to stall the matter, he opened his defence with a curious request: that the DSS Director General, Tosin Ajayi, be on subpoena as his first witness.

However, on Monday, October 19, 2026, Sowore suffered what could be called his fourth loss when the trial judge ruled that he could not compel the DG Tosin Ajayi’s appearance. Justice Umar ruled that the subpoena involved an official act of the DSS rather than a personal action against the Director-General, meaning another delegated official of the agency could testify on his behalf.

Back to October 19, 2026, where Lawyer Yakubu called Sowore a “tout.” Interestingly, “tout” can function as a verb or a noun. As a noun, it means “a person who solicits business” or who “pesters people for custom, or acts as an intrusive guide/barker in tourist zones.” It could also mean a ” ticket reseller; someone who buys and flips event tickets at an inflated price.”

A “criminal,” on the other hand, is “a person who has committed an unlawful act or has been legally convicted of a crime by a court.”

As it were, the coincidence in the subject matter under analysis is significantly striking. A man who is in court for calling President Tinubu “a criminal” was insisting, with considerable indignation, that another person had no right to describe him in a “ticket reseller!” And there, beyond the high-decibel confrontation, lies the real story.

It is not simply whether Barrister Yakubu used the word attributed to him, or whether Sowore was justified in demanding its withdrawal. It is whether the principles of dignity, fairness and restraint can be applied consistently across the political divide – or whether they become convenient weapons that people demand only when they are the targets.

The incident invites an uncomfortable but necessary examination of the relationship between the freedom to criticise and the obligation to tolerate criticism.

Sowore has built much of his public identity around confrontational activism, outspoken criticism of political authority and an unapologetic willingness to challenge powerful institutions. His political interventions frequently employ sharp language, sometimes deliberately provocative.

Such a disposition is not, in itself, incompatible with democratic citizenship. But the trouble begins when the right to speak freely is interpreted as a licence to speak without consequence, while the right of others to respond is treated as an offence against personal dignity. If Sowore believes that being called a “tout” is insulting, he is entitled to make that objection. But the principle cannot stop there.

The President, his supporters, his critics, political opponents, lawyers and ordinary citizens all inhabit the same moral universe. If a disparaging label is objectionable when directed at Sowore, the same question of fairness must arise when he employs an equally damaging description of another person. This is the uncomfortable symmetry at the heart of the controversy.

Sowore’s insistence that he should not be insulted raises a legitimate question: does he extend the same solicitude to the people he publicly insults? If he expects others to respect the boundary between forceful criticism and personal abuse, is he prepared to recognise that boundary when he is the speaker rather than the target? These are questions of consistency, not attempts to silence dissent.

A relevant question is not whether Sowore has the right to object. He does. It is whether his conception of that right is part of a wider commitment to reciprocal dignity – or whether it is being asserted as a privilege reserved for himself.

It needs to be clarified here that President Tinubu occupies a position of immense constitutional authority. His policies, decisions, public statements, record in office and stewardship of national resources are legitimate subjects of scrutiny. A president cannot reasonably demand the deference traditionally associated with an untouchable sovereign while exercising the powers of an elected public official.

Democracy depends on the freedom to question government, challenge official accounts and investigate allegations of wrongdoing. Without that freedom, accountability becomes a ceremonial word and public office becomes an insulated preserve.

Yet the distinction between criticism and accusation matters. Calling a policy disastrous is an assessment of its consequences. Calling a public official incompetent is an evaluative judgment that can be tested against performance. Alleging criminality, however, can carry a more specific and damaging implication: that an individual has engaged in conduct constituting a crime.

That is why the appropriate response to contested allegations must be grounded in evidence, legal standards and due process – not the political stature of the person making the allegation or the office of the person targeted. And this is precisely why the DSS intervened. A judicial process is ongoing, and the outcome would broaden our legal perspectives.

The DSS is Nigeria’s primary domestic intelligence agency, which plays a critical role in national security and intelligence gathering. Its main responsibilities are within Nigeria and include counter-intelligence, medical intelligence, economic intelligence, internal security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance as well as investigating some other types of serious crimes against the state.

It is also charged with the protection of senior government officials, particularly the president, vice president, state governors and visiting heads of state and governments with their respective families. In effect, any threat to the president – physical or psychological – as in this case, requires a specific action by the agency. To act otherwise would be shirking its responsibility, putting the President – and Nigeria – at risk. This is the line the DSS is towing, albeit, in a civil manner.

By its operational mandate, the DSS could easily have chosen to move roughshod against mischief and crises entrepreneurs who have wrongly opted to game the agency’s civility. But instructively, the DSS, under the administration of its Director-General, Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, is towing a different engagement strategy with those who misalign with its objectives. There is more.

The setting of Monday’s confrontation adds another layer to the controversy. A courtroom is not merely a physical venue where lawyers, defendants and witnesses assemble. It is an institution intended to replace personal vengeance with orderly adjudication, intimidation with argument, and competing claims with the disciplined examination of evidence.

Its authority rests partly on the willingness of those who enter it to submit their disagreements to rules that apply to all. The DSS has towed this civil footing.

Sowore’s own reaction to being called a tout in court should be judged against the standard he invoked. His demand for an apology or withdrawal – which he refused to offer President Tinubu- could have been made without allowing the dispute to become a spectacle of personal confrontation.

Video evidence also indicated that some of Sowore’s supporters joined the confrontation and that threats were allegedly made against the lawyer. If such allegations are established, they would represent a further departure from the very principles of lawful conduct that the activist was demanding from his interlocutor. No political cause confers a licence to threaten another person.

A courtroom must not become a theatre in which the loudest voice claims moral victory. Nor should it become a stage where political sympathies determine whose dignity deserves protection.

It is noteworthy that those who are most forceful in challenging others can sometimes be least comfortable when the same scrutiny turns towards them. The activist who cavalierly denounces the arrogance of power may become defensive when challenged.

The ability to identify injustice when one suffers it is not the same as the ability to recognise injustice when one benefits from it. The ability to defend one’s own dignity is not proof of an equal commitment to the dignity of others.

That is why the Abuja court incident is more than an exchange between two individuals. It is an illustration of the moral burden that accompanies public advocacy. A person who demands fairness must be willing to defend fairness for opponents.

A person who insists on freedom of expression must recognise that the freedom belongs to others as well. A person who condemns insults must be prepared to examine his own language.

The wider significance of this controversy lies in Nigeria’s continuing struggle to establish a political culture in which the law is neither an instrument of repression nor a shield against accountability.

Sowore’s ongoing case over his high-handed description of President Tinubu as a “criminal” must be decided according to the evidence and applicable law. His political identity should neither prejudice the proceedings against him nor automatically immunise him from their outcome. Significantly, this is the line the DSS is towing.

Nigeria’s democracy does not suffer from a shortage of strong opinions. It suffers, more fundamentally, from the difficulty of persuading citizens and leaders that disagreement need not descend into personal denigration, intimidation or the abandonment of principle. But a democratic society also has an interest in the quality of its public discourse. This is essential to a political culture governed by reason rather than impulse.

The confrontation at the Federal High Court in Abuja presents Sowore with an opportunity for a larger reflection – and offers the Nigerian public a mirror in which to examine its own habits.

His objection to being called a “tout” violently contrasts with his description of President Tinubu as a “criminal” – a scenario backed by his record of provocative political speech.

This glaring contradiction remains instructive. If Sowore demands that others recognise the limits of permissible language when addressing him, consistency requires him to take seriously the same question when he addresses others.

For Nigeria, the lesson extends beyond one activist, one lawyer or one president. A democracy cannot flourish if every participant claims the protections of justice for himself while treating them as expendable when the target is an adversary.

Justice is not a private possession. Fairness is not a political favour. And the rule of law cannot be reduced to a demand that others behave properly while one’s own conduct remains beyond examination.

The real test of principle is not how passionately we demand fairness when we are offended. It is whether we remain committed to fairness when it constrains our own words, tempers our anger and requires us to extend to others the very respect we insist they owe us.

That is the test raised by the Sowore-Yakubu confrontation. It is also the test of democratic maturity.

• Achi, former Associate Editor, THISDAY Newspaper, is a governance trends analyst