The publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, on Tuesday, refused to enter his defence in his ongoing his cyberbullying trial in which he was accused of falsely calling President Bola Tinubu a criminal.
Defence lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, informed Judge Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that Mr Sowore had personally written to the Chief Judge (CJ), John Tsoho, seeking the reassignment of the case to another judge of the court.
|
|
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Sowore is being prosecuted by the State Security Service (SSS) on cybercrime charges for referring to the president as “a criminal” in social media posts on his X and Facebook.
On 8 May, the judge, Mr Umar, dismissed Mr Sowore’s no-case submission and upheld the argument by the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), that a prima facie case had been established against him to warrant his being called upon to enter a defence.
|
|
|
|---|
Shortly after the ruling, Mr Sowore and his lawyer, Mr Abubakar, applied orally that the judge should withdraw from further handling the case on grounds of alleged bias.
Following the objection raised by Mr Kehinde that such application is usually made formal to enable the other party respond appropriately, the judge ordered Mr Sowore to file a formal application.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Mr Abubakar told the court that his client had submitted letters and applications to the Chief Judge, demanding a reassignment of the case to another judge.
He said the applications, one filed personally by Mr Sowore and the other by him (the lawyer), were accompanied with affidavits and exhibits containing reasons they made the request.
Responding, Kehinde said he was served on May 19 with the two letters filed by the defence on May 19.
Mr Kehinde argued that what the defence had done was contrary to what the court ordered them to do on the last date, which was to file a formal application to the court on their request for the judge’s recusal.
“All the processes that they have filed are of no moment.
“This was not the directive of the court. We are opposed to all they have done,” he said.
The prosecution lawyer urged the court not to allow the defence to determine the pace of the proceedings in the case.
He observed that the case had gotten to the stage where the defendant should enter his defence if he had any.
He said if the defendant had no defence, he should tell the court so that the prosecution can make the appropriate application.
In his reply, Mr Abubakar argued that the defence had done the appropriate thing and urged the court not to allow itself to be railroaded into taking steps that are alien to the administration of justice.
The lawyer urged the court to adjourn further proceedings in the case to await the decision of the chief judge on the letters.
Mr Umar, in a ruling, ordered the prosecution to file his response to the defence’s letters dated 19 May and addressed to the Chief Judge and also served on the prosecution.
The judge adjourned the matter until 4 June to await the outcome of the petition written by the defence to the Chief judge.
Bias allegation
The defence first raised the bias allegation during the previous proceedings on 8 May.
Mr Sowore personally lobbed the allegation at the judge after his lawyer sought and obtained the judge’s permission for the activist to speak.
Addressing the court, Mr Sowore alleged that the judge previously humiliated his lawyer by ordering him to kneel during a court sitting.
Mr Sowore said he was not confident of getting justice and asked the judge to recuse himself from the case.
His lawyer, Mr Abubakar, also aligned with the request and urged the court to step down.
However, the prosecution opposed the application. Mr Kehinde argued that a recusal request must be brought formally through a written motion.
Ruling on the recusal request, Judge Umar ordered the defence to file a formal application.
He directed that the application must be served on the prosecution and must state clear grounds for the request.
The judge then adjourned the case until 19 May (Tuesday) for hearing.
The incident Mr Sowore referenced occured on 16 March.
The lawyer drew the ire of the judge when he raised his voice while making submissions in court.
Mr Abubakar raised his voice while insisting that the date chosen by the court for the defence to open its case was not convenient for him.
Mr Umar then ordered Mr Sowore’s lawyer to “come out” of the bar area of the courtroom “and kneel down.”
Other lawyers, however, quickly prevailed upon the judge to forgive Mr Abubakar
The SSS is prosecuting Mr Sowore on cyberbullying charges which stemmed from him calling President Tinubu a “criminal” in his posts via his X and Facebook handles.
READ ALSO: Court dismisses Sowore’s no-case submission against charges of calling Tinubu criminal
Mr Sowore was originally charged alongside the parent companies of X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook on 5 December 2025.
But a recent amendment to the charges saw X Incorp and Meta (Facebook) Incorp dropped from the case as defendants. It left Mr Sowore as the sole defendant.
The amendment also pruned down the number of counts from five to two.
Following the amendment, the SSS rearraigned Mr Sowore in January, when the former presidential candidate again pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The judge’s conduct drew widespread condemnation, from including the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
(NAN)
