The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday warned that it could close the defence of Sahara Reporters publisher and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, if he fails to proceed with his case at the next hearing in his ongoing criminal defamation trial.
Justice Mohammed Umar issued the warning after the Department of State Services (DSS) urged the court to foreclose Sowore’s defence following another application for adjournment.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore over alleged defamatory publications against President Bola Tinubu.
According to the prosecution, Sowore falsely described the President as “a criminal” in posts published on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts.
The charges against him include criminal defamation, cyberstalking and incitement.
When the matter came up for hearing on Thursday, Sowore was present in court but none of his lawyers appeared.
Justice Umar questioned the absence of his legal team.
“Where are your legal team?” the judge asked.
Responding, Sowore explained that his lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), travelled to the United Kingdom with the court’s knowledge.
“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 he would like to handle this case because he is a skilful lawyer,” Sowore said.
He also informed the court that another member of his legal team, Reuben Adakole, was engaged in another court.
“I think the business of today is continuation of defence. That is my first submission, my lord,” he added.
Justice Umar then asked Sowore whether he intended to proceed with the case himself.
“Do you want to proceed?” the judge asked.
Sowore replied that because of the seriousness of the matter, he preferred an adjournment until his lawyer was available.
“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.
He further requested permission to make another application.
However, Justice Umar cautioned that making any application beyond seeking an adjournment would amount to representing 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.
“If you are seeking an adjournment that your counsel is not in court, that will be considered after hearing from the prosecution.
“But if you are making an application, it means you are telling this court that you are taking over the defence on your own,” the judge ruled.
Opposing the request for adjournment, counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), argued that the defence had repeatedly delayed the trial.
He informed the court that the application represented the 11th adjournment sought by the defence since the case commenced.
“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.
“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,” Kehinde submitted.
He reminded the court that there was an existing order directing that the trial should proceed on a day-to-day basis.
According to him, the repeated requests for adjournment violated the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
Kehinde argued that the defendant had shown no willingness to proceed with his defence and therefore urged the court to bring the defence to an end.
“I urge your lordship, in the interest of justice which is a three-way traffic – justice for the prosecution, the defence and the society – to foreclose the defence and make a consequential order accordingly,” he said.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Umar declined the prosecution’s request but described the adjournment as the final opportunity that would be granted to the defendant.
“I have heard the application of the defendant, seeking 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 to which the lead counsel needs to give serious attention to same.
“I equally listened to counsel to 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 defendant present his defence before court,” the judge held.
Justice Umar stated that while the court could not compel Sowore to conduct his own defence, the principles of fair hearing required that he be given another opportunity.
He, however, warned that failure to proceed at the next hearing could result in the court closing his defence.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until July 22 for definite continuation of the defence.
Following the ruling, Sowore sought the court’s permission to address it on another issue, which was granted.
He requested the temporary release of his international passport to enable him submit it to the United States Embassy over what he described as a family emergency involving his children.
“I want to bring it to your lordship’s attention various serious issues. I have a family emergency which requires that my passport be given to US Embassy so that my children in the U.S. can attend to some emergencies,” he said.
Justice Umar directed him to file a formal application, noting that the prosecution would also be given the opportunity to respond before any decision would be taken on the request.
