Sowore fails to enter defence in cyberbullying trial, accuses judge of bias

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

Activist and online publisher Omoyele Sowore has failed to enter a defence in his ongoing trial before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on cyberbullying-related offences.

Sowore was arraigned by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly making false claims against President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” in a post he made on his X and Facebook accounts.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling on 8 May, dismissed Sowore’s no-case submission and upheld the argument by counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, that a prima facie case had been established against Sowore to warrant his being called upon to enter a defence.

Justice Umar then ordered the defendant to enter his defence against the case already made out against him by the prosecution.

Shortly after the ruling, Sowore and his lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, applied orally that the judge should withdraw from further handling the case on grounds of alleged bias.

Following the objection raised by Kehinde that such applications are usually made formally to enable the adverse party to respond appropriately, Justice Umar ordered the defence to file a formal application on its request for the judge to recuse himself, to enable the prosecution to respond and for the court to make a ruling.

When the case came up on Tuesday, Abubakar told the court that his client had filed letters and applications to the court’s Chief Judge, demanding a reassignment of the case to another judge.

He said the applications, one filed personally by Sowore and the other by him, were accompanied by affidavits and exhibits containing reasons why they were asking that the case be reassigned to another judge.

Responding, Kehinde said he was served on 19 May with the two letters filed by the defence on the same date.

Kehinde argued that what the defence had done was contrary to what the court ordered them to do on the last date, which was to file a formal application to the court on their request for the judge’s recusal.

He said: “All the processes that they have filed are of no moment. This was not the directive of the court. We are opposed to all they have done.”

The prosecuting lawyer urged the court not to allow the defence to dictate the pace of the proceedings in the case.

He noted that the case had got to the stage where the defendant should enter his defence if he had one and, if he did not, he should tell the court so that the prosecution could make the appropriate application.

In his reply, Abubakar argued that the defence had done the appropriate thing and urged the court not to allow itself to be railroaded into taking steps that are alien to the administration of justice.

The defence lawyer urged the court to adjourn further proceedings in the case to await the decision of the court’s Chief Judge on the letters they wrote.

Ruling, Justice Umar ordered the prosecution to file its response to the defence’s letters dated 19 May, which are addressed to the Chief Judge and which have also been served on the prosecuting lawyer.

The judge adjourned further hearing till 4 June pending the outcome of the petition written by the defence to the court’s Chief Judge.