Oweleke was arraigned before Justice Akintoye Aluko on a two-count charge involving alleged cybercrime offences and the transmission of messages said to be capable of provoking public unrest.
At the commencement of proceedings, DSS counsel Michael Bajela informed the court that the agency had filed a two-count charge against the defendant and requested that the charges be read for him to enter his plea.
Following the reading of the charges, Oweleke pleaded not guilty to both counts.
According to the prosecution, the defendant allegedly used his social media platform, “Oweleke TV,” to publish broadcasts and messages urging the military to remove the Tinubu-led government and emulate the political events that occurred in Burkina Faso.
The DSS contended that the publications were subversive in nature and designed to incite members of the public, create disaffection and threaten public order.
Bajela told the court that Oweleke allegedly, on or about May 23, 2025, knowingly transmitted messages and broadcasts through his social media handle, “Oweleke TV,” which the prosecution described as subversive.
The agency further alleged that the broadcasts encouraged Nigerians to support a military takeover and sought to undermine the country’s constitutional order.
The prosecutor also accused the defendant of transmitting messages through the same platform that allegedly bullied, threatened or harassed President Tinubu, thereby placing the President and the office he occupies in fear of death, violence or bodily harm.
According to the prosecution, the alleged acts contravened Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024, and are punishable under the same provision. The second count was said to be contrary to Section 24(2)(a) of the Act and punishable under Section 24(2)(c)(i).
Despite the allegations, the defendant denied all charges brought against him.
Following the plea, the prosecution urged the court to set a trial date and remand the defendant in a correctional facility pending the hearing of the case.
Counsel to the defendant, however, informed the court that a bail application had already been filed and served on the prosecution.
While expressing no objection to the fixing of a trial date, the defence lawyer indicated readiness to move the bail application if granted leave by the court.
In response, Bajela confirmed receiving the application but explained that it had only been served on him shortly before the proceedings began. He therefore requested time to examine the application and file an appropriate response.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Aluko adjourned the matter until June 16, 2026, for the hearing of the bail application and ordered that the defendant remain in custody pending the determination of the application.