Sowore’s Cyberbullying Trial Stalls As Lawyers Clash Over

The cyberbullying trial of human rights activist and African Action Congress presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, was on Monday stalled, following a heated exchange between his counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), and prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Key Highlights:

• Trial adjourned to September 20, 2026 after courtroom clash.
• Defence blamed registry delays for missing key documents.
• Prosecution accused defence of stalling the trial.
• Judge warned defence counsel over courtroom remarks.
• Sowore denies cyberbullying charges.

The disagreement followed an application by the defence for another adjournment to enable it to obtain the certified true copies of documents it said were necessary for the continuation of its case.

Fusika told Justice Muhammed Umar that the defence had been reliably informed that a witness from the Department of State Services (DSS) was in court following a subpoena issued to the agency’s Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi.

He, however, said the defence could not proceed because it had yet to receive the certified court documents it had requested from the court registry.

According to him, the defence applied for the documents on July 22, 2026, but was repeatedly informed by the registry that the judge had not approved the application.

Fusika said the defence later discovered that Justice Umar had approved the application on July 27.

“Obviously, the fault is not from Your Lordship’s end. It is a registry issue. The document is prefatory to the continuation of the defence,” he told the court.

But Kehinde opposed the application, accusing the defence of deliberately frustrating the trial and keeping the case unnecessarily on the court’s docket.

He said both parties had agreed at the previous sitting that a nominated DSS officer would appear to testify for the defence, adding that the prosecution had fulfilled its part of the agreement.

“That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution,” Kehinde said, noting that the witness was already in court to testify.

The prosecutor argued that the responsibility for diligently pursuing the application at the registry rested with the defence.

He urged the court to foreclose the defence’s case, arguing that the defence had been given sufficient opportunities to present its case.

Kehinde submitted that case management powers vested in the court did not violate the constitutional right to fair hearing.

He cited Sections 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that the provisions guaranteed an opportunity to be heard but did not confer an unlimited right to delay proceedings.

Responding, Fusika rejected the allegation of deliberate delay, saying the prosecution had failed to address the circumstances presented before the court.

Read Also:

He said the defence could have insisted on the attendance of the subpoenaed DSS Director-General if it intended to delay the proceedings.

Fusika also argued that the defence could not have known when the judge approved its application, saying it could only rely on information provided by the court registry.

He relied on Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act to argue that the documents sought were material to the line of questioning intended by the defence.

The lawyer described the allegation that the defence was deliberately delaying the trial as “insulting,” considering the expenses and efforts involved in attending court proceedings.

Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and the matter has been adjourned about four times at the instance of the defence.

Fusika subsequently gave the court a chronology of events from June 22, 2026, when he took over the conduct of the case, in an attempt to demonstrate that the defence had acted diligently.

Tension, however, escalated when Kehinde rose to make further submissions.

Fusika interrupted him and referred to his conduct as that of a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor.

The remark drew an immediate warning from Justice Umar, who cautioned the senior lawyer against further outbursts, warning that any repetition of such conduct could result in his referral to the “appropriate disciplinary bodies.”

Justice Umar thereafter adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence’s case, saying he could not proceed further with the hearing.

At the previous sitting, the defence withdrew its subpoena seeking to compel the DSS director-general to testify after the prosecution argued that the evidence sought from him had already been admitted twice during the trial.

The federal government is prosecuting Sowore on a two-count charge of cyberbullying over his alleged description of President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” on his official X and Facebook accounts.

Sowore has pleaded not guilty to the charges.