Omoyele Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), has filed a ₦5 billion fundamental rights suit against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, Tosin Ajayi, and other government officials over an alleged assault and forcible removal from the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The suit, filed on October 13, 2026, challenges the actions of DSS operatives during an incident at the court on June 22, 2026.

Sowore is asking the court to declare the alleged actions unlawful and unconstitutional, arguing that the operatives violated his rights to dignity and personal liberty.

Other respondents in the case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2480/2026, are the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), and DSS Deputy Director Benjamin Bulus, whom the activist alleges led the operation.

According to the court documents, the incident occurred after Justice Mohammed Garba Umar ordered Sowore’s remand at the Kuje Correctional Centre.

The order was made pending the hearing and determination of his application seeking a stay of the decision revoking his bail and the bench warrant issued against him.

Sowore alleged that he was still waiting for correctional officers to arrive and take him into custody when armed DSS operatives entered the fourth floor of the court building.

He claimed that some of the operatives, including men and women wearing hoods, confronted him and subjected him to physical assault.

The activist further alleged that the operatives forcibly removed him from the area and took him to the basement of the court complex against his will.

He claimed they used elevators reserved for Federal High Court judges during the operation and that he sustained injuries in the process.

In challenging the incident, Sowore maintains that the court’s remand order did not authorise the DSS to assault him, intimidate him or subject him to degrading treatment.

He is asking the court to determine whether the operatives acted beyond the limits of the judicial directive and whether their actions amounted to a breach of his fundamental rights.

The suit places particular emphasis on the circumstances surrounding the operation, which allegedly took place within the premises of the same institution responsible for enforcing the rule of law.

Sowore argues that the existence of a remand order could not give security personnel unrestricted authority to use force against him.

A key part of the case is video footage allegedly recorded by Sowore using Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses during the incident.

The court documents indicate that the activist intends to rely on the recording to establish what happened inside the court complex and demonstrate the conduct of the DSS operatives.

The footage is expected to form part of the evidence supporting his account of the alleged assault and forcible removal.

Sowore argues that the recording could help the court establish the sequence of events and determine whether the operatives acted within the authority granted by the remand order.

However, the evidential value of the footage will depend on the court’s assessment of its authenticity, admissibility and relevance to the issues raised in the case.

Its submission does not, on its own, establish that the allegations have been proved.

The court will have to consider the evidence presented by the parties before reaching a decision on the disputed events and the legal responsibility of the respondents.

Omoyele Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), has filed a ₦5 billion fundamental rights suit against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, Tosin Ajayi, and other government officials over an alleged assault and forcible removal from the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The suit, filed on October 13, 2026, challenges the actions of DSS operatives during an incident at the court on June 22, 2026.

Sowore is asking the court to declare the alleged actions unlawful and unconstitutional, arguing that the operatives violated his rights to dignity and personal liberty.

Other respondents in the case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2480/2026, are the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), and DSS Deputy Director Benjamin Bulus, whom the activist alleges led the operation.

According to the court documents, the incident occurred after Justice Mohammed Garba Umar ordered Sowore’s remand at the Kuje Correctional Centre.

The order was made pending the hearing and determination of his application seeking a stay of the decision revoking his bail and the bench warrant issued against him.

Sowore alleged that he was still waiting for correctional officers to arrive and take him into custody when armed DSS operatives entered the fourth floor of the court building.

He claimed that some of the operatives, including men and women wearing hoods, confronted him and subjected him to physical assault.

The activist further alleged that the operatives forcibly removed him from the area and took him to the basement of the court complex against his will.

He claimed they used elevators reserved for Federal High Court judges during the operation and that he sustained injuries in the process.

In challenging the incident, Sowore maintains that the court’s remand order did not authorise the DSS to assault him, intimidate him or subject him to degrading treatment.

He is asking the court to determine whether the operatives acted beyond the limits of the judicial directive and whether their actions amounted to a breach of his fundamental rights.

The suit places particular emphasis on the circumstances surrounding the operation, which allegedly took place within the premises of the same institution responsible for enforcing the rule of law.

Sowore argues that the existence of a remand order could not give security personnel unrestricted authority to use force against him.

A key part of the case is video footage allegedly recorded by Sowore using Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses during the incident.

The court documents indicate that the activist intends to rely on the recording to establish what happened inside the court complex and demonstrate the conduct of the DSS operatives.

The footage is expected to form part of the evidence supporting his account of the alleged assault and forcible removal.

Sowore argues that the recording could help the court establish the sequence of events and determine whether the operatives acted within the authority granted by the remand order.

However, the evidential value of the footage will depend on the court’s assessment of its authenticity, admissibility and relevance to the issues raised in the case.

Its submission does not, on its own, establish that the allegations have been proved.

The court will have to consider the evidence presented by the parties before reaching a decision on the disputed events and the legal responsibility of the respondents.