The Federal High Court in Abuja has warned that it may close the defence of African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, in his ongoing criminal defamation trial if further delays persist.
Justice Mohammed Umar issued the warning on Thursday after the Department of State Services (DSS), through its lead counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), urged the court to foreclose Sowore’s defence, arguing that the case had suffered repeated adjournments at the instance of the defendant.
Sowore is standing trial over allegations that he criminally defamed President Bola Tinubu by describing him as a “criminal” in posts published on his verified X and Facebook accounts.
At Thursday’s proceedings, none of Sowore’s lawyers was present in court, prompting Justice Umar to ask why the defence team was absent.
Responding personally, Sowore informed the court that his lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), was in the United Kingdom and that the court was aware of the trip. He added that another member of his legal team, Reuben Adakole, was engaged in another court.
Sowore consequently sought an adjournment, insisting that the matter was too serious for him to proceed without legal representation.
“I will urge your lordship to adjourn the matter because it is a serious case and I will need a lawyer to defend me,” he said.
However, Justice Umar cautioned that any substantive application made personally by Sowore could be interpreted as a decision to conduct his own defence.
“If you want to take up the case, let us know. If you have any application to make, it means you are planning to defend yourself. If you are seeking an adjournment because your counsel is not in court, that will be considered after hearing from the prosecution,” the judge said.
Opposing the request, DSS counsel Kehinde told the court that the defence had already secured 11 adjournments, all at its own instance, despite an earlier order directing that the trial proceed on a day-to-day basis.
He recalled that at the previous sitting on July 13, the defence had also sought an adjournment on similar grounds, even after the court granted subpoenas for defence witnesses.
According to him, the continued absence of the lead counsel could no longer justify delaying the proceedings.
“This is the 11th adjournment. The defendant is clearly not ready to proceed with his defence,” Kehinde argued, urging the court to foreclose the defence case in line with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
Although Justice Umar acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns over the repeated delays, he declined to immediately shut the defence.
“The defendant clearly stated that this is a serious matter to which the lead counsel needs to give serious attention,” the judge said.
“I equally listened to counsel to the prosecution that this is the 11th adjournment and that the defendant’s defence should be foreclosed.
“Fair hearing demands that all parties be heard and the defendant presents his defence before court.”
The judge, however, warned that while the court would grant the latest request for adjournment, it could not continue indefinitely and could not compel the defendant to defend himself, signalling that any further delays may result in the defence being closed.
