- The prosecution opposed the request, insisting that the defence had misinterpreted the contents of the letter
- He stressed that the matter had reached the stage where the defendant was expected to present his defence
- Justice Umar adjourned the matter until June 5 for Sowore to begin presenting his defence in the case
The Federal High Court in Abuja has directed African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, to commence his defence in the criminal defamation suit instituted against him over comments allegedly made about President Bola Tinubu.
Eko Hot Blog gathered that Justice Mohammed Umar gave the order on Thursday after rejecting an application by the defence seeking to delay proceedings until after the court’s annual vacation.
The judge subsequently fixed June 5 for the defendant to begin presenting his case and ordered that the trial proceed on a day-to-day basis.
Sowore, a former presidential candidate and publisher, is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over allegations that he described President Tinubu as “a criminal” in posts published on his X and Facebook accounts.
At the resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that the matter had been scheduled to receive the response of the Chief Judge to a letter written by Sowore on May 19, requesting that the case be reassigned to another judge.
Kehinde explained that he was served with the Chief Judge’s reply, dated May 22, in which the request for reassignment was declined and the court was directed to continue hearing the case.
Based on the response, the prosecution asked the court to compel the defendant to open his defence.
However, Sowore’s lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, argued that the Chief Judge’s correspondence suggested that a formal application could still be filed and urged the court to adjourn the matter until after the vacation period to allow his client attend to political commitments ahead of the next election cycle.
The prosecution opposed the request, insisting that the defence had misinterpreted the contents of the letter.
“The letter from the Chief Judge of this court did not ask the defendant or his counsel to file an application for recusal. So, it is disingenuous for counsel to read into the letter an interpretation that the Chief Judge did not include in the letter,” Kehinde told the court.
Following arguments from both sides, Justice Umar requested and reviewed the Chief Judge’s response before delivering his ruling.
The judge held that the defence’s interpretation was incorrect, stating that the correspondence contained no directive requiring the filing of a fresh application.
“From the content of the letter, there is nowhere the defendant is asked to file an application before this court,” Justice Umar ruled.
“This court is not denying the defendant the right to file any application. This can be done anytime before judgment.”
He stressed that the matter had reached the stage where the defendant was expected to present his defence and subsequently ordered Sowore to proceed accordingly.
The court further directed that proceedings continue daily in line with provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which encourages speedy determination of criminal cases.
Following the ruling, the defence renewed its request for an adjournment until after the court vacation. The application was again opposed by the prosecution, which argued that the law required the trial to move forward without unnecessary delays.
“There is no room for dilatory practice for a defendant facing a criminal trial,” Kehinde said.
He added: “The option left at this point is for the defence to continue or simply be foreclosed. It is either they continue, or they are foreclosed.”
After hearing both parties, Justice Umar adjourned the matter until June 5 for Sowore to begin presenting his defence in the case.
