Mr Sowore said his lawyers are afraid to appear before the judge.
Sahara Reporters publisher and activist Omoyele Sowore, on Friday, refused to enter his defence in his ongoing cyberbullying trial in which he is accused of falsely calling President Bola Tinubu “a criminal.”
Mr Sowore, a two-time presidential candidate gearing up to run again for the presidency against Mr Tinubu in 2027, however, insisted that the trial judge Mohammed Umar withdraw from the case.
On Friday, the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the court that the day’s hearing was slated for the defence to open its case, but no lawyer appeared for Mr Sowore.
Mr Sowore told the judge that his legal team said they were afraid to appear before him, so he would be representing himself.
“The matter according to what I heard is for defence. However, my lawyers said they are afraid to appear before you because of the humiliation they suffer before this court. I shall be representing myself, pending when I will constitute new lawyers,” Mr Sowore said, maintaining that it was his constitutional right to choose lawyers to represent him.
He then informed the court of an application filed on Thursday, 4 June, and served on the prosecution Friday morning.
He told the judge he intended to move the application, which is for the judge’s recusal. The application was brought under section 36 (1), (5) and (6) of the Nigerian Constitution.
Mr Kehinde said he had no objection to the hearing of the application.
Moving the motion, Mr Sowore explained that the application was for the judge to return “the case file to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge.”
He also asked for time to prepare himself, since he was now representing himself in the case and urged the court to grant his application.
Reacting, Mr Kehinde raised concerns about the signing of the application. He said there was no name attached to the motion paper as the counsel that prepared it.
The judge, after checking the application, said he presumed it was signed by the first defence counsel on record, Marshal Abubakar.
He cautioned the prosecution against raising technical issues on the application. He said he wanted to give the defendant fair hearing to the best of his knowledge.
Mr Umar added that technical moves from the prosecution would not be condoned, but said time would be given to respond if needed.
Following the caution, Mr Kehinde then applied orally on point of law to respond to the application and file his objection later. The court granted it.
In response, the prosecution lawyer described Mr Sowore’s application as an abuse of the court process. He said it was meant to “annoy and irritate the court.”
He submitted that the court was bound by its record. He recalled that a letter dated 22 May 2026 from the Chief Judge directed that the matter should proceed, and that the letter was made available to all parties.
He explained that that was not withstanding a subsisting order of the court that defence must commence and “the defence could be foreclosed if the defendant was not ready.”
He urged the court to refuse the application in its totality and to throw away what he called “the tantrums of the defendant and his lawyers, so the business of the day” could proceed.
Responding, Mr Sowore said, considering that he was now representing himself, he needed time to prepare.
On the other hand, the judge said he would have to go through the bulky application before deciding whether or not he would recuse himself. He adjourned the case to Monday, 8 June.
When Mr Sowore insisted on more time, the judge reminded him of his order for daily hearing.
But Mr Sowore pressed further. He told the court to take judicial notice that he had been interested in the case from the beginning. He said he appreciated the judge for allowing him to represent himself, but insisted he needed time to engage a lawyer, “at least one week,” preferably after Democracy Day on 12 June.”
When Mr Kehinde insisted that the court had already made an order, the judge said the court would decide when to rule. He added that he wanted to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
The judge therefore adjourned the matter until 15 June for ruling on the application. He noted that if the application succeeds, he would step aside from the case.
Earlier on Thursday, the judge rejected a request by Mr Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, to adjourn further hearing in the case until after the court’s vacation.
He then ordered daily hearing in the matter from Friday and directed the defendant to open his defence.
This followed submissions by the prosecuting lawyer Mr Kehinde, who told the court that the matter was fixed for 4 June for parties to receive the response of the Chief Judge to a letter Mr Sowore wrote on 19 May. The letter asked that the case be reassigned to another judge.
Mr Kehinde said he was served on 26 May with the Chief Judge’s response dated 22 May. He told the court that the request for reassignment was declined and that the court was directed to continue hearing the case. He then urged the court to order the defendant to enter his defence.
