By Opeyemi Adelakun
The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned until October 2 the continuation of the defence of the African Action Congress presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, in the alleged cyber-bullying case filed against him by the Department of State Services.
Sowore is being prosecuted over social media posts he published in August 2025 on X, formerly known as Twitter, and Facebook, in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” and accused him of misrepresenting the level of corruption in Nigeria.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, Sowore filed a no-case submission, which the court rejected and subsequently directed him to open his defence.
He had also unsuccessfully sought the recusal of the trial judge after alleging bias. The request was rejected by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
At Monday’s proceedings, the prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, told Justice Mohammed Umar that the matter had been scheduled for September 28 for the defendant to continue his defence.
However, Sowore’s counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, informed the court that the defence was expecting a subpoenaed witness from the DSS and might be unable to proceed without the witness.
The lawyer recalled that at the previous hearing, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, had reached an understanding with the defence that another DSS officer would be made available to represent the agency’s Director-General, who had originally been subpoenaed.
According to him, no DSS representative appeared in court on Monday.
Olumide-Fusika said the defence would therefore have no option but to seek an adjournment, adding that the subpoenaed witness could be compelled to appear in court if necessary.
The defence lawyer also tendered newspaper publications reporting that the DSS had indicated that its counsel would seek a suspension of the proceedings until after the 2027 general elections.
He said the defence had expected the prosecution to request an extended adjournment when the court resumed proceedings after the annual vacation.
However, when Justice Umar asked why no DSS official was present in court in view of the earlier understanding with the AGF, Kehinde argued that producing a defence witness was not the responsibility of the prosecution.
He maintained that it was the defence’s duty to ensure that its witness appeared in court.
Kehinde also objected to the defence’s reliance on social media publications, saying he was unaware of the reports cited by the defence and urged the court to disregard them.
The prosecution counsel further asked the court to direct Sowore to proceed with his defence, warning that failure to do so would compel the prosecution to seek an order foreclosing the defence.
Justice Umar, however, noted the absence of the subpoenaed witness and granted the defence another opportunity to produce the witness.
The judge consequently adjourned the case until October 2 for continuation of Sowore’s defence.
Leave a Reply