The planned arraignment of Omoyele Sowore, activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, on charges of defaming President Bola Tinubu stalled again on Wednesday at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The proceeding was stalled due to the absence of Mr Sowore and his defence team from court.
|
|
Trial judge Mohammed Umar rejected the prosecution’s request to order Mr Sowore’s arrest over his absence.
Mr Umar said there was no need to rush, refusing the prosecution’s call for the activist’s arrest.
|
|
|---|
Mr Sowre was charged alongside the parent companies of Facebook and X over his posts on the social media platforms in August calling Mr Tinubu a criminal.
Their arraignment was first stalled on 30 September after Mr Sowore’s lawyers argued that he had not been properly served with the charges. The matter was rescheduled to 27 October, but the court did not sit that day, prompting another postponement until Wednesday.
Neither Mr Sowore nor his defence team was present in court on Wednesday.
However, during the proceedings, lawyers to the other parties in the case alluded to a letter from Deji Adeyanju, who described himself as Mr Sowore’s lead lawyer, requesting an adjournment of the case till another date.
The prosecution, X Corporation – the owner of X (second defendant) and Meta – the Facebook owner (third defendant) – were all represented by their lawyers on Wednesday.
Mr Sowore posted the controversial comment calling Mr Tinubu a criminal on X and Facebook in August.
In October, the Nigerian government filed five counts of cybercrimes and defamation jointly against Mr Sowore, Facebook and X.
The government instituted the charges after the futile efforts of the country’s secret police agency, the State Security Service (SSS), to compel the trio to delete the posts.
Call for arrest
At the start of Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution lawyer Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said he received the letter on Tuesday night from Mr Adeyanju, who addressed himself as Mr Sowore’s lead lawyer in the case, requesting an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.
He recalled that on 30 September, the arraignment could not proceed after the first defendant claimed he had not been served the charge, even “though the charge was already in the media and the defendant was in court.”
He added that the court adjourned the matter till 27 October.
He said, although the court did not sit on the matter that day, Mr Sowore and his lawyers were absent and the court registry issued 5 November as the new date.
Mr Kehinde said Mr Adeyanju’s letter alleged that the new date was “fixed off record without proper consultation.”
But he argued that “the letter was a ploy to delay the proceedings.”
He therefore applied orally for a bench warrant for the arrest of Mr Sowore. He argued that the arraignment should not continue to be stalled.
He noted that all processes in the matter were filed by Femi Falana as lead lawyer and urged the court to disregard Mr Adeyanju’s letter and issue the bench warrant.
READ ALSO: Court gives Nnamdi Kanu ‘final chance’ to present his defence
Facebook’s lawyer, Tayo Oyetibo, a SAN, said he was not against the issuance of a bench warrant against Mr Sowore. He said the letter from Mr Adeyanju was disrespectful to the parties and the court.
Mr Oyetibo told the court that he travelled from Lagos for the hearing only to receive the letter at Abuja airport on Tuesday. He added that the letter appeared to refer to a different matter, as it mentioned “4 November rather than 5 November.”
He also informed the court that the first defendant, Mr Sowore had accused him on social media of “siding with the federal government against him”. However, he told the court to decide on the bench warrant.
On her part, X’s lawyer, Christabel Ndokwelu, argued that her client had not been properly served and only received hearing notice.
She urged the court to ensure proper service for his client to be ready for arraignment.
The prosecution insisted that a bench warrant be issued against Mr Sowore.
But, responding, the judge said there was no need to rush and declined the request for the bench warrant.
He ordered the prosecution to properly serve X. He also directed that Mr Sowore be served the hearing notice for the new date and adjourned proceedings till 2 December.
