Human rights activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, on Friday informed the Federal High Court in Abuja of his decision to represent himself in the ongoing alleged cyberbullying case instituted against him by the Department of State Services (DSS), pending the constitution of a new legal team.
Sowore made the declaration before Justice Mohammed Umar shortly after the matter was called for the commencement of his defence. The development followed the absence of his lead counsel, Marshall Abubakar, during Friday’s proceedings.
The case stems from allegations by the DSS that Sowore made defamatory and false claims against President Bola Tinubu through posts published on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts, in which he allegedly referred to the President as “a criminal.”
The matter had been adjourned on Thursday after Justice Umar directed that the trial should proceed on a day-to-day basis. The judge declined an oral application by the defence seeking a lengthy adjournment and insisted that the proceedings continue without delay.
When the case resumed on Friday, DSS counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), was present in court, while Sowore appeared without legal representation. Asked by the court about the absence of his lawyers, Sowore claimed that his legal team had withdrawn from the proceedings following what they considered humiliating treatment by the court.
According to him, the ruling delivered on Thursday contributed to their decision not to continue appearing before Justice Umar.
“Our lawyers indicated to me they are afraid before you and will not appear any longer because of the humiliation they suffered before this court.
“And pending the time I am able to re-constitute a new legal team, I shall be representing myself before your lordship,” Sowore told the court.
The activist maintained that the Constitution guarantees every defendant the right to choose legal representation and insisted he would exercise that right by engaging a new team of lawyers.
Sowore also informed the court that he had filed two separate applications, one of which had already been served on the prosecution. Among the applications was a motion seeking the recusal of Justice Umar from further handling of the matter.
The defendant requested permission to move the motion, which sought an order directing the judge to withdraw from the case on grounds of alleged bias and humiliation. The prosecution did not oppose the request for the motion to be heard.
While arguing the application, Sowore relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, contending that every litigant is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial court.
Responding to the motion, DSS counsel Kehinde argued that the application was procedurally defective, claiming that the copy served on the prosecution did not bear the name or signature of the lawyer who prepared it.
“This application is fundamentally incompetent as there is no name of the counsel that prepared the motion and attached to the motion paper,” Kehinde submitted.
However, Justice Umar noted that the copy before the court was duly signed by Marshall Abubakar.
“From my record here, the person that signed it is Marshall Abubakar,” the judge observed.
Kehinde maintained that the version served on him was unsigned, but the court cautioned against raising technical objections capable of delaying proceedings.
“We presume it is Marshall Abubakar that signed it. I will not condone any technical move from you,” Justice Umar stated.
Further opposing the application, the DSS lawyer described the motion for recusal as an abuse of court process intended to frustrate the trial.
According to him, the Chief Judge had already directed that the case should proceed, citing a letter dated May 22 which had been communicated to all parties involved.
He also reminded the court that there was a subsisting order requiring the defence to open its case on Friday, warning that failure to proceed could result in the defence being foreclosed.
“Moreover, there is a subsisting order of this court that defence must commence today and the option is for the defence to be foreclosed if the defendant is not ready,” Kehinde argued.
After listening to both parties, Justice Umar said he would need time to review the processes filed by Sowore before delivering a decision on the recusal request.
“I will adjourn this case to Monday for ruling,” the judge said.
Sowore subsequently appealed for additional time to secure new legal representation, citing the upcoming Democracy Day celebration as part of his request.
“My lord, take judicial notice that I have attended this case from day one. I am just asking for indulgence for at least a week to come,” he pleaded.
Justice Umar ultimately adjourned the matter until June 15, 2026, for ruling on the recusal application and for the commencement of the defence.
The latest development adds another layer of controversy to a case that has attracted significant public attention, with the court now expected to determine whether Justice Umar will continue to preside over the proceedings before the substantive defence begins.
