Mr Sowore, who will run against Mr Tinubu’s second term bid in the 2027 election, presented the widely known lawyer Deji Adeyanju as his first witness when he opened his defence on 6 July.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday threatened to foreclose Sahara Reporters publisher Omoyele Sowore’s defence in the ongoing trial over alleged defamation.
The State Security Service (SSS) is prosecuting Mr Sowore, the African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate for the upcoming 2027 elections, on cyberbullying charges for calling President Bola Tinubu a criminal in last year’s social media posts.
Mr Sowore, who will be running against Mr Tinubu’s second term bid in the 2027 election, presented widely known lawyer Deji Adeyanju as his first witness when he opened his defence on 6 July.
Justice Mohammed Umar warned of the possibility of cutting short Mr Sowore’s defence following an oral application by the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
The prosecution lawyer was spurred to make the call after Mr Sowore sought an adjournment of Thursday’s proceedings over his lead defence counsel’s absence.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that, though Mr Sowore was in court, none of his lawyers was present.
“Where is your legal team?” Justice Umar asked.
Responding, Mr Sowore said, ”Unfortunately, my lead counsel, Mr Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, travelled to the UK with the knowledge of the court.
“Olumide-Fusika advised me to inform the court that he will not be available for today’s hearing and that he will like to handle this case because he is a skillful lawyer.”
He said besides, the junior lawyer, Reuben Adakole, was in another jurisdiction.
“I think the business of today is continuation of defence. That is my first submission my lord,” he said.
The judge then asked Mr Sowore what he wanted.
“Do you want to proceed?” Justice Umar asked.
Responding, Mr Sowore said that because it was a serious case, he would ask for an adjournment.
“I will urge your lordship to adjourn the matter because it is a serious case and I will need lawyer to defend me,” he said.
The defendant also begged the court to allow him make another application.
But the judge told Mr Sowore that applying to make another application other than seeking an adjournment, would mean he had decided to represent himself in court.
“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 that your counsel is not in court, that will be considered after hearing from the prosecution.
“But if you are making an application, it means you are telling this court that you are taking over the defence on your own,” the judge said.
In his response, the prosecution lawyer said Mr Sowore’s application for adjournment was his 11th so far in the course of the trial.
“With respect, this matter came up on July 13, 2027, and the defence counsel made an application for adjournment and the court adjourned to today because of the fact that their next set of witnesses are subpeaned witnesses and your lordship signed the subpeana.
“This same excuse was given that the lead counsel was absent at the last adjourned date and this court said that the absence of lead counsel cannot stop this proceeding,” Mr Kehinde said.
The prosecution lawyer also argued that a subsisting court order required the trial to proceed day-to-day.
He said Thursday’s application made it 11 times the defence would be making such a request, contrary to the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
The senior lawyer submitted that it was crystal clear that Mr Sowore was not ready to proceed with his defence.
He, therefore, applied that his defence should be foreclosed.
“I urge your lordship, in the interest of justice which is a three-way traffic: justice for the prosecution, the defence and the society, to foreclose the defence and made a consequential order accordingly,” he said.
Ruling, Justice Umar said he will give Sowore the last opportunity in the interest of fair hearing.
