Human rights activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, has yet to begin his defence in the cyberbullying case instituted against him before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Department of State Services (DSS) is prosecuting Sowore over allegations that he made false claims against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by describing him as “a criminal” in posts shared on his X and Facebook platforms.
At the previous sitting on May 8, Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the no-case submission filed by the defence. The court agreed with the prosecution’s position, presented by DSS counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), that sufficient evidence had been established to require Sowore to enter a defence.
Following the ruling, Sowore and his lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, orally requested that Justice Umar withdraw from handling the matter, alleging bias on the part of the judge.
However, the prosecution objected, arguing that such a request should be made formally to allow the other party respond properly. The judge subsequently directed the defence to file a formal application seeking his recusal so the prosecution could respond before the court delivers a ruling.
When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Abubakar informed the court that letters and applications had already been submitted to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court requesting that the matter be reassigned to another judge.
According to him, one of the applications was personally filed by Sowore, while the second was submitted by the defence counsel. He added that both applications were backed with affidavits and documentary exhibits explaining why they believe the case should be transferred.
Responding, Kehinde told the court that the defence served him the letters on May 19, the same day they were filed. He argued that the defence failed to comply with the earlier directive of the court, which specifically ordered them to file a formal application before Justice Umar regarding the recusal request.
The DSS lawyer further urged the court not to permit the defence to control the direction of the proceedings, stressing that the matter had already reached the stage where the defendant should either open his defence or indicate he had none so the prosecution could take the necessary legal steps.
In response, Abubakar maintained that the defence acted appropriately and cautioned against any attempt to “railroad” the court into procedures inconsistent with justice administration. He also appealed for an adjournment pending a decision from the Chief Judge on the petitions submitted by the defence.
In his ruling, Justice Umar directed the prosecution to respond to the letters dated May 19 addressed to the Chief Judge and served on the DSS counsel. The matter was subsequently adjourned until June 4 to await the outcome of the petition before the Chief Judge.