Court Rejects DSS Application To Foreclose Sowore’s Defence In Trial Over ‘Tinubu Is A Criminal’ Remark
Court Rejects DSS Application To Foreclose Sowore’s Defence In Trial Over ‘Tinubu Is A Criminal’ Remark
Sowore is standing trial for allegedly cyberbullying President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal.”
AFederal High Court sitting in Abuja on Thursday rejected an application by the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking to foreclose the defence of human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, due to the absence of his lawyers in court.
Sowore is standing trial for allegedly cyberbullying President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal.”
At the resumed hearing before Justice Mohammed Umar on Thursday, the judge turned down the application moved by the prosecution counsel, Kehinde Akinlolu, which sought to prevent Sowore from presenting his defence and urged the court to convict the activist.
Speaking from the dock, Sowore told the court that his lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), had informed the court during the previous proceedings that he would be travelling to the United Kingdom (UK) for an important engagement.
He also explained that Raphael Adakole, who was holding brief for Olumide-Fusika, had equally notified the court that he had another matter outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
When the judge asked Sowore whether he wished to proceed without his lawyers, the activist responded that, given the seriousness of the case, he preferred that his lawyers be present before the trial continued.
He therefore sought an adjournment to enable his lawyers, particularly his lead counsel who had shown interest in personally handling the case, to be present.
Sowore also sought the leave of the court to make an application concerning pressing family issues, which required him to retrieve his passport from the court and present it at the U.S. Embassy in Lagos.
At that point, the judge interjected, informing the activist that he could not make any application before the court unless he was prepared to represent himself. Sowore clarified that he was not representing himself in the case but urged the court to consider the urgency of the family issues he needed to attend to.
The prosecution counsel, Kehinde Akinlolu, opposed the application for adjournment and urged the court to enforce its earlier order that the matter be heard on a day-to-day basis.
Akinlolu asked the judge to foreclose the defence, arguing that Sowore was not ready for trial.
According to the prosecution, the defence had relied on a similar reason at the previous hearing, arguing that its next witness, described as a “star witness,” could not testify in the absence of the lead counsel.
The prosecution maintained that the absence of the defence’s lead counsel should not stall the proceedings, noting that the court had previously ruled that the matter should continue despite such circumstances.
In his ruling, the trial judge acknowledged that the defence had applied for an adjournment and agreed that the case was a serious one requiring adequate legal representation.
While stressing that every defendant must be afforded a fair opportunity to present a defence, the court warned against unnecessary delays capable of frustrating the administration of justice.
Consequently, the judge granted what he described as a final adjournment, warning that no further delay would be entertained on similar grounds.
The judge further cautioned that if the defence failed to proceed at the next sitting, the court would take appropriate steps in accordance with the law to ensure that the trial continued.
He also directed the defendant to file a formal application for the temporary release of his passport to enable him attend to his urgent family matters.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until July 22, 2026, for the definite continuation of trial.
