Adeyanju supports Sowore's claim that Tinubu is a 'criminal' during cyberbullying trial

The publisher of Sahara Reporters and activist Omoyele Sowore began his defence on Monday at the Federal High Court in Abuja. This is part of his trial for alleged cyberbullying over social media posts where he called President Bola Tinubu a "criminal."

Deji Adeyanju, a lawyer known for his comments on public affairs, was the first defence witness. He defended Sowore's remark about Tinubu while testifying before the trial judge, Mohammed Umar. Adeyanju stated that Tinubu had publicly said citizens could criticise and "even insult him" as part of democracy.

He also told the court that the president had urged the judiciary "not to allow itself to become an instrument of oppression" against those who criticise the government. Adeyanju mentioned that Tinubu made these statements before Sowore posted the comments that led to the charges against him.

The judge then postponed the trial until 13 July. This was after the defence told the court they needed a television to show video recordings of the president's statements. The SSS charged Sowore with cybercrime last year for his posts on X and Facebook where he labelled Tinubu a "criminal."

The prosecution finished its case in March after calling one witness. On 8 May, Umar rejected Sowore's no-case submission and ordered him to start his defence. At one point, Sowore represented himself after his lawyers withdrew from the case. He later asked the judge to recuse himself due to alleged bias.

The judge scheduled a ruling on this request for 15 June. But the court did not sit on that day, even though Sowore was present. Later, Sowore informed court officials he would travel to Lagos and asked to set the next hearing for July.

Despite this, the judge set the hearing for 16 June. When Sowore did not show up, the court cancelled his bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest. He was arrested later, and his lawyers filed a request to challenge the revocation of his bail.

On 30 June, while ruling on this request, which the prosecution opposed, Judge Umar granted Sowore new bail of N200 million with two sureties. The judge released Sowore to his lawyers and scheduled the case for Monday, 6 July, for him to start his defence.

When Adeyanju took the stand on Monday, the prosecution, led by Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), objected. Kehinde argued that Adeyanju, being a lawyer in the case, could not act as both counsel and witness. He said, "I will address that in my final written address and explain why anything the witness says should not be believed."

In response, Sowore's lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, also a SAN, said Adeyanju had never appeared as counsel in the case since he took over. "The law is very clear," he said. The court allowed Adeyanju to testify.

During the proceedings, Sowore's lawyer, Olumide-Fusika, led Adeyanju in evidence. Adeyanju stated that he lived in Wuse II, Abuja, and that he knew Sowore. He described him as "the publisher of Sahara Reporters, a human rights activist and a former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC)."

He explained that Sowore was on trial for sending electronic messages via X, previously known as Twitter, and Facebook, which the prosecution claimed amounted to cyberbullying Tinubu. Adeyanju said social media platforms are mainly for users to interact.

He shared that users only interact with those who follow them or have a connection. He gave examples from his own Facebook and X accounts, explaining that another user could not send him a direct message without first becoming a friend or follower.

He added that he uses the platforms to share his views and connect with like-minded individuals. Adeyanju described his social media pages as his "personal virtual home," where only content he chose to publish was visible.

He made a clear distinction between public social media accounts and private messaging services. According to him, X Chat and Facebook Messenger are different apps for private communication, unlike public posts on timelines.

Mr Olumide-Fusika then pointed to the court’s 8 May ruling that dismissed Sowore’s no-case submission. He asked Adeyanju to read a part of that ruling. The witness talked about Tinubu's public statements that supported the citizens' right to criticise public officials and warned the judiciary against suppressing critics.

Adeyanju testified that he downloaded the videos before 25 August 2025 and passed them to the defence. To meet the standards for electronic evidence, he presented an affidavit of compliance in court.

The defence then sought to submit the affidavit along with a 2GB flash drive containing the video recordings. The prosecution did not object, and the judge accepted them as evidence.

After admitting the evidence, Olumide-Fusika asked for an adjournment to play the video recordings, requesting the court provide a television. The prosecution lawyer, Kehinde, opposed this request. He reminded the court that the prosecution had closed its case in March and that the defence should have made arrangements earlier for the video.

The judge replied that it was the court’s duty to provide the needed facilities for the hearing. He then adjourned the case until 13 July for the defence to continue after Adeyanju said he would be unavailable until Friday.

As part of the bail conditions, Sowore was instructed to submit his passport to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court. The judge also ordered that the prosecution verify both sureties.

Before the proceedings ended, Kehinde told the court that none of Sowore's bail conditions had been met. "There is no sentiment in criminal litigation," he said. He asked the court to keep the defendant in custody until the bail conditions were fulfilled.

Kehinde mentioned that Sowore had given an interview to Arise Television on Friday regarding the case. In response, Olumide-Fusika disagreed with the prosecutor's claim that the bail conditions were not met. He expressed confidence that the court would receive the necessary report by the end of the day.

He also noted that the defence had complied with the court's order to produce Sowore after his release. Olumide-Fusika accused Kehinde of having "personal issues" with Sowore and questioned his insistence on the defendant's remand. He added that he was unaware of any interview with Arise Television.

The judge clarified that he had not restricted Sowore from giving media interviews. He said the court was only interested in whether Sowore complied with the bail conditions. The judge insisted it was necessary to remand Sowore and said he would be released immediately once the bail conditions were fulfilled.

Olumide-Fusika requested the court to give Sowore until the next hearing to meet the bail conditions. Kehinde maintained that the court had already ruled on the matter and that as of Monday, none of the bail conditions had been fulfilled. He denied having any personal interest against Sowore, saying he was just following instructions from his client.

After considering their arguments, the judge gave the defence until the end of business on Monday to meet the bail conditions. He said the court would then decide the next steps.