Sowore's Trial Hits a Snag as Lawyers Clash in Court

The trial of Omoyele Sowore, a presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) and Sahara Reporters, faced delays at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday.

This happened after a disagreement between senior lawyers for the prosecution and the defence as the court session began.

Prosecution lawyer Akinloku Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), accused the defence of using delaying tactics when lead defence lawyer Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, also a SAN, asked for an adjournment.

In response, Olumide-Fusika countered that Kehinde was blaming the defence for all the issues in the case, including the prosecution’s failure to bring the director-general of the State Security Service (SSS), who was supposed to testify.

Things got heated between the two lawyers, which led Judge Mohammed Umar to adjourn the case until 20 September.

The SSS is prosecuting Sowore on charges like cyberstalking. This stems from Sowore’s social media posts last year on X and Facebook where he called President Bola Tinubu “a criminal.”

Sowore has stood by his posts and denied any wrongdoing regarding his comments on social media.

During the 22 July proceedings, Olumide-Fusika told the judge that his team intended to request a subpoena for SSS director-general Oluwatosin Ajayi to present a letter in court and answer questions from the defence.

The letter, dated 7 September 2025, asks Sowore to retract his alleged defamatory posts about Tinubu. Olumide-Fusika argued that they needed Ajayi to appear because Uwem Davies, another SSS official who had testified, could not properly respond to the questions about the letter.

However, on 28 July, the defence decided not to summon the SSS director-general. This followed the unexpected appearance of Attorney-General of the Federation Lateef Fagbemi, who promised that another senior official would be sent to testify.

At the start of Monday’s session, Olumide-Fusika told the court that a witness was present because of the subpoena served on the SSS director-general.

“Unfortunately, it will not be possible for us to proceed,” Olumide-Fusika said.

He explained that even though he filed an application on 22 July to certify documents for the witness, he found out just minutes before the hearing that his request had been granted.

“We filed an application on 22nd July 2026, and we were told that your lordship had not approved it.

“We only discovered that the court approved it since 27th July, a few minutes before we began,” he said.

He stated that the issue was not the judge's fault but a problem with the court registry.

The prosecution lawyer Kehinde disagreed. He argued that the defence was trying to delay the case. He reminded the court that at the last adjournment, both sides agreed that a nominated officer from the SSS would come to testify for the defence.

“That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution. The witness is here to be cross-examined on Exhibit DW-D presented on July 22,” Kehinde said.

He claimed it was the defence’s job to follow up on their application. He asked the court to end Sowore’s case, saying he was wasting the court’s time.

He noted that if the court had repeatedly given chances that had been frustrated, the court could use its powers to manage the case.

Kehinde argued that this would not breach Sowore’s right to a fair hearing. He pointed to Sections 36(4) and (6) of the Nigerian Constitution, saying the constitution only guarantees the chance to be heard, not an endless right to delay.

He also cited a 2011 Supreme Court ruling in Segun Ogunsanya vs The State to support his point. He asked the court to direct both sides to submit their final written addresses.

In response, Olumide-Fusika disagreed with Kehinde’s argument. He claimed the prosecution had not addressed the facts properly.

He accused Kehinde of blaming the defence for problems that included the prosecution’s failure to produce a witness. He insisted that if they wanted to delay the case, they would have called the earlier subpoenaed witness.

He also challenged the claim that the defence should have followed up on its application, saying they could not know when the judge signed it since the communication did not come through the registry.

He referenced Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act to back his argument. Olumide-Fusika added that if he wanted to delay things, he would not have shown up in court during the court’s vacation.

“If he (Kehinde) doesn’t want to cooperate with me, and he wants us to be fighting…” Olumide-Fusika said as the judge interjected.

“Mr Fusika,” Justice Umar said, but Olumide-Fusika continued, “How can he say that I am using delaying tactics?”

Kehinde then stood up and said, “I object to counsel’s insults against me. I respectfully ask that he be calm. I am the oldest member of the Bar…”

The judge reminded Olumide-Fusika that he just took over the case and said the defence had been delaying since March when the prosecution finished its part.

But Olumide-Fusika insisted that his calmness should not be mistaken for weakness. He said the prosecution should focus on the facts.

“What exactly are these alleged delaying tactics?” he asked.

Kehinde interrupted again, saying, “My lord, he can’t speak all the time, this court does not belong to him.”

To which Olumide-Fusika replied, “Does it belong to you? You act like a persecutor. What is wrong with you; all you want is to jail him.”

The judge, upset with the lawyers’ argument, warned that he would refer any lawyer to the disciplinary body if they kept it up.

“I have been on the bench for 22 years. We have junior counsel here. This is not good.

“This should be the last time. If you are no longer interested in the case, you should say so.

“You cannot behave in my court like this.

“I am adjourning this matter. I cannot continue hearing the case today,” Justice Umar said.

He then adjourned the matter until 20 September for the defence to continue.