The Department of State Services (DSS) has filed a three-count charge against Mubarak Abdullahi, popularly known as Sardaunan Samari, over his alleged circulation of a fabricated letter attributed to President Bola Tinubu and addressed to the President of the United States.
The charges, which border on alleged cybercrime and defamation, were filed at the Federal High Court in Kaduna following investigations into the document that circulated on social media.
According to a report by Punch Newspapers published on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, Abdullahi was arrested on September 28 after sharing the purported letter on his Facebook page with the caption “ATIKU IS COMING.”
The document was presented online as correspondence allegedly written by Tinubu to the US president, drawing attention amid continuing public debate over the Nigerian leader’s past legal issues in the United States.
However, the authenticity of the circulating document has been questioned, and the allegations against Abdullahi are now the subject of criminal proceedings.
Bayo Onanuga, the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, announced the development in a post on social media, stating that the suspect had been arraigned before a chief magistrate court in Kaduna.
According to Onanuga’s account, Abdullahi admitted during investigations that he had shared the document and apologised for his actions, although the apology did not prevent the DSS from pursuing the case.
The chief magistrate court subsequently ordered that Abdullahi be remanded at the Nigerian Correctional Centre in Kaduna while the legal process continued.
The DSS has also filed the three-count charge at the Federal High Court, Kaduna, but the date for his formal arraignment before that court had not been fixed as of the publication of the report.
The development has brought renewed attention to the role of security agencies in investigating the circulation of allegedly false documents involving public officials, particularly when such material spreads rapidly through social media platforms.
Digital platforms have made it easier for users to share political claims and documents with large audiences, but the speed of circulation can also make it difficult for readers to establish whether information is authentic before passing it on.
In this case, the prosecution will need to establish the specific allegations against the defendant and present its evidence through the appropriate legal process.
The charges remain allegations, and the filing of a case does not by itself establish guilt, which must be determined through the judicial process.
The case has also generated criticism from human rights activist and political figure Omoyele Sowore, who condemned the arrest and questioned the use of a national security agency in a matter involving a social media post.
Sowore argued in a post on X that the action raised concerns about freedom of expression and the treatment of government critics, presenting a sharply different view from the government’s position on the investigation.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate in Nigeria about how authorities should respond to misleading online content while protecting citizens’ rights to express political opinions and scrutinise public officials.
The distinction between political criticism and the deliberate circulation of fabricated material is likely to remain central to public discussion as the case progresses.
For the prosecution, the proceedings will provide an opportunity to present the basis for the charges and explain how the alleged conduct falls within the relevant laws.
For the defendant, the court process will provide the opportunity to respond to the allegations through legal representation and challenge the evidence presented against him.
The case also serves as a reminder for social media users to verify the origin of purported official letters, especially documents bearing the names, signatures or letterheads of government officials.
Checking official government communication channels and credible news organisations before sharing such material can help reduce the spread of unverified claims.
At the same time, the handling of the case will be watched by observers concerned about the balance between preventing harmful misinformation and preserving freedom of expression under the law.
With the DSS having filed its charges and the formal arraignment date at the Federal High Court still pending at the time of reporting, further developments are expected to clarify the prosecution’s case and the next steps in the proceedings.