Court Threatens to End Sowore’s Defence in Defamation Case

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday warned it might end Sahara Reporters publisher Omoyele Sowore’s defence in his ongoing trial over alleged defamation.

The State Security Service (SSS) is prosecuting Mr Sowore, who is the African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate for the upcoming 2027 elections, on cyberbullying charges. This is over his social media posts last year where he called President Bola Tinubu a criminal.

Mr Sowore, who plans to run against Mr Tinubu in the 2027 election, brought in well-known lawyer Deji Adeyanju as his first witness when he began his defence on 6 July.

Justice Mohammed Umar raised the possibility of cutting Mr Sowore’s defence short after a request from the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). This request came after Mr Sowore sought to delay Thursday’s proceedings because his main lawyer was not present.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while Mr Sowore was in court, none of his lawyers were there. “Where is your legal team?” Justice Umar asked.

Mr Sowore replied, “Unfortunately, my lead counsel, Mr Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, travelled to the UK with the knowledge of the court. Olumide-Fusika advised me to inform the court that he will not be available for today’s hearing and that he would like to handle this case because he is a skilled lawyer.”

He added that the junior lawyer, Reuben Adakole, was in another jurisdiction. “I think the business of today is continuation of defence. That is my first submission my lord,” he said.

The judge asked Mr Sowore what he wanted to do. “Do you want to proceed?” Justice Umar asked. Mr Sowore replied that since it was a serious case, he would prefer to ask for an adjournment. “I will urge your lordship to adjourn the matter because it is a serious case and I will need a lawyer to defend me,” he said.

The defendant also requested the court to allow him to make another application. But the judge told Mr Sowore that if he wanted to make another application instead of just seeking an adjournment, it would mean he had decided to represent himself.

“If you want to take up the case, let us know. If you have any application to make, it means you are planning to defend yourself,” the judge said. “But if you are seeking an adjournment because your counsel is not in court, that will be considered after hearing from the prosecution.”

The prosecution lawyer responded by stating that Mr Sowore’s request for an adjournment was his 11th since the trial started. “With respect, this matter came up on July 13, 2027, and the defence counsel made an application for adjournment and the court adjourned to today because of the fact that their next set of witnesses are subpoenaed witnesses and your lordship signed the subpoena,” Mr Kehinde said.

He added, “This same excuse was given that the lead counsel was absent at the last adjourned date and this court said that the absence of lead counsel cannot stop this proceeding.” The prosecution lawyer also mentioned that a court order required the trial to proceed day-to-day.

He noted that Thursday’s request made it the 11th time the defence was making such a request. “It is clear that Mr Sowore is not ready to proceed with his defence,” he said. He then asked that Mr Sowore’s defence be cut short.

“I urge your lordship, in the interest of justice, to foreclose the defence and make a consequential order accordingly,” he said.

In his ruling, Justice Umar said he would give Sowore one last chance in the spirit of fair hearing. “I have heard the application of the defendant, seeking for adjournment of the case on the basis that his lead counsel was not in court. The defendant clearly stated that this is a serious matter which needs serious attention.”

“I also listened to counsel for the prosecution that this is the 11th adjournment and that the defendant’s defence should be foreclosed. Fair hearing demands that all parties be heard and the defendant presents his defence before court,” he said.

The judge added that while the court cannot force the defendant to defend himself, he would grant Mr Sowore’s application for adjournment. But he warned that he might have to end Mr Sowore’s defence if he does not continue to present his case during the next sitting.

The judge then adjourned the case until 22 July for the definite continuation of the defence. Shortly after this ruling, Mr Sowore showed interest in addressing the court, and the judge permitted him to speak.

The defendant requested that his passport be submitted at the United States embassy to deal with a family matter. “I want to bring to your lordship’s attention various serious issues.” But Justice Umar told him to file a formal application for that, and the prosecution should respond before he makes a decision.

The SSS charged Mr Sowore with cybercrime over his posts on X and Facebook last year where he referred to President Tinubu as “a criminal.” The prosecution finished its case in March after calling its only witness.

On 8 May, Mr Umar rejected Mr Sowore’s no-case submission and told him to start his defence. Mr Sowore, who once represented himself after his legal team withdrew, later asked the judge to step down from the trial due to alleged bias.

The judge set 15 June for a ruling on this application. However, the court did not sit on that day even though Mr Sowore showed up. Mr Sowore later told court officials he would go to Lagos and asked that any new hearing date be set for July.

The judge then set the hearing for 16 June. When Mr Sowore did not show up, the court revoked his bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest. He was later arrested, and his lawyers filed an application challenging the bail revocation.

On 30 June, while ruling on this application, which the prosecution opposed, Judge Umar granted Mr Sowore fresh bail of N200 million with two sureties. He then released Mr Sowore to his lawyers and adjourned the case until Monday, 6 July for him to open his defence.

On 6 July, Mr Sowore opened his defence, calling Mr Adeyanju as his first witness. In his testimony, Mr Adeyanju, a lawyer known for his public affairs comments, defended Mr Sowore’s statement about Mr Tinubu. He said Mr Tinubu had publicly stated that citizens could criticise and “even insult him” as part of democratic governance.

He also told the court that the president urged the judiciary “not to allow itself to become an instrument of oppression” against government critics.