Human rights activist and publisher of SaharaReporters, Omoyele Sowore, has filed a N5 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Department of State Services (DSS), its Director-General, Tosin Ajayi, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and a deputy director of the agency, Benjamin Bulus, over an alleged assault and abduction inside the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The suit, filed on October 13, 2026, and marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2480/2026, challenges the legality of the alleged action by DSS operatives at the court premises on June 22, 2026. Sowore is seeking damages over alleged violations of his rights to dignity and personal liberty.

In the court processes, Sowore alleged that armed and hooded DSS operatives attacked him while he was awaiting the arrival of correctional officers to implement a remand order issued by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

He claimed that the operatives forcibly removed him from the fourth floor of the court building and took him against his will through elevators reserved for judges to the basement of the complex, sustaining injuries during the incident.

According to him, the operation exceeded the scope of the court’s remand order, which directed that he be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing and determination of his application for a stay of the order revoking his bail and the bench warrant issued against him.

Sowore contended that the remand order did not authorise the DSS to assault, intimidate or subject him to degrading treatment, arguing that the operatives had no lawful basis to use force against him in the circumstances.

The suit identifies Ajayi as the DSS Director-General and Bulus as the deputy director and operative alleged to have led the operation. It asks the court to determine the legality of their conduct and the respective responsibilities of the defendants.

A key piece of evidence relied upon by Sowore is a video recording of the incident allegedly captured with Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses.

The footage, according to the applicant, forms part of the materials presented for the court’s consideration in determining the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The admissibility, authenticity and evidential weight of the recording remain subject to the applicable rules of evidence and the court’s determination.

Relying on Sections 34 and 35 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, Sowore is asking the court to determine whether the alleged physical assault, forcible removal, intimidation and detention violated his rights to dignity and personal liberty.

Among the reliefs sought is N5 billion in aggravated damages for the alleged assault, abduction, humiliation, intimidation and infringement of his fundamental rights.

He is also seeking declaratory and injunctive orders, as well as other consequential reliefs the court may consider appropriate.

Sowore maintains that the incident represents an abuse of state power, particularly because it allegedly occurred within the premises of a court of law, where the authority and dignity of judicial proceedings should be respected.

The latest suit comes against the backdrop of a similar incident involving Sowore and DSS operatives at the Federal High Court in Abuja on December 6, 2019, during proceedings before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu over treason-related charges arising from the #RevolutionNow protests.

During that incident, DSS operatives attempted to rearrest Sowore inside the court premises, an action that attracted public criticism and prompted a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of security operatives within judicial premises.

Sowore subsequently filed legal proceedings against the DSS and obtained a judgment awarding damages against the agency. He alleged that the agency has yet to comply with the monetary award made by Justice Egwuatu.

The current action, according to the applicant, seeks to address the alleged conduct of security operatives within judicial premises, the enforcement of fundamental rights and the accountability of federal security agencies.

His position is that no security agency can rely on executive authority, national security considerations or the existence of judicial proceedings to justify conduct that violates constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The defendants’ responses to the latest suit were not contained in the statement announcing the action issued by his lawyer, Peter Femi Joseph.