Sowore Fails to Enter Defense in Cyberbullying Trial
Omoyele Sowore, a notable politician and online publisher, missed the opportunity to present his defense in his ongoing cyberbullying trial at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The proceedings are centered around allegations that Sowore labeled President Bola Tinubu a “criminal” and made false accusations against him via social media platforms, including X and Facebook.
Court Upholds Prosecutor’s Claims
During the last court session on May 8, Justice Mohamed Umar delivered a pivotal ruling, dismissing Sowore’s plea for non-prosecution. The judge upheld the argument of prosecuting attorney Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), confirming that a prima facie case had been established against Sowore, thus necessitating his defense. Notably, the court had previously rejected Sowore’s fundamental rights motion, imposing a fine of N1.5 million on the DSS and other parties involved.
Justice Umar’s Directives
Justice Umar subsequently directed Sowore to commence his defense against the charges laid out by the prosecution. Following this ruling, Sowore and his attorney, Marshall Abubakar, raised concerns about the judge’s impartiality, requesting that he withdraw from further involvement in the case.
Formal Procedures Challenged
In light of Kehinde’s objection to an informal motion, Justice Umar mandated that the defense file a formal application requesting the judge’s resignation, providing the prosecution an opportunity to respond. This procedural framework aims to ensure fairness and transparency in the ongoing legal process.
Defense Seeks Case Reassignment
When the case resumed on Tuesday, Abubakar informed the court that Sowore had formally requested the Chief Justice to reassign the case to another judge. The requests included Sowore’s personal application, alongside a second one submitted by his legal team, both supported by an affidavit outlining reasons for the reassignment.
Prosecution’s Argument Against Defense Actions
In response, Kehinde contended that the letters submitted by the defense were inconsistent with the court’s previous directive, arguing that they did not adhere to the formal application process. He asserted that the defense’s procedural maneuvers lacked legitimacy, emphasizing, “All the proceedings they have brought are not instantaneous. We are objecting to everything they have done.”
Court Proceedings Adjourned
Prosecution attorneys pressed the court to proceed without delay, stating that the case had reached a point necessitating a formal defense from Sowore. Responding to this urgency, Abubakar maintained that the defense acted appropriately and requested an adjournment pending the Chief Justice’s judgment regarding their letter.
Next Steps in the Legal Battle
In a decisive ruling, Judge Umar instructed the prosecution to respond to the defense’s letter dated May 19, which had been served to both the presiding judge and the prosecution team. The judge subsequently adjourned the proceedings until June 4, awaiting the outcome of the defense’s petition to the Chief Justice, underscoring the complexities of this high-profile legal case.
