The trial of human rights activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore took a dramatic turn on Monday at the Federal High Court in Abuja as his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, clashed with prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN.
The heated exchange occurred during arguments over the defence’s request for another adjournment to enable it to obtain a Certified True Copy of court documents it said were crucial to the continuation of its case.
Fusika told Justice Mohammed Umar that the defence had been reliably informed that a witness from the Department of State Services was in court following a subpoena issued to the agency’s Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi.
He, however, said the defence could not proceed because it had yet to obtain the certified documents required for its case.
According to the senior lawyer, the defence applied for the Certified True Copy on July 22, 2026, but was repeatedly told by the court registry that the judge had not approved the request.
Fusika said the defence later discovered that Justice Umar had approved the application on July 27.
“Obviously, the fault is not from Your Lordship’s end. It is a registry issue. The document is prefatory to the continuation of the defence,” he told the court.
But Kehinde opposed the application, accusing the defence of deliberately frustrating the trial and keeping the case on the court’s docket unnecessarily.
He reminded the court that at the previous sitting, both parties had agreed that a nominated DSS officer would appear to testify for the defence, adding that the prosecution had fulfilled its part of the agreement.
“That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution,” Kehinde said, adding that the DSS witness was present to testify in relation to Exhibit DWD.
The prosecutor argued that the defence, having made the application for the documents, had a duty to diligently follow it up with the registry rather than waiting until the day of hearing.
He urged the court to foreclose the defence’s case, arguing that the defence had been given sufficient opportunities to present its case.
Kehinde also argued that foreclosing the defence would not amount to a violation of Sowore’s constitutional right to fair hearing.
Fusika, in his response, accused the prosecution of failing to address the facts presented before the court and instead attempting to blame the defence for circumstances beyond its control.
He said the defence had not engaged in any dilatory tactics, stressing that if its intention was to delay proceedings, it could have insisted on the attendance of the DSS Director-General as a witness.
The lawyer further argued that the defence could not determine when the judge approved its application and had to rely on information supplied by the court registry.
Relying on Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act, Fusika said the documents sought were material to the line of questioning the defence intended to pursue.
He described the suggestion that the defence was deliberately delaying the case as “insulting”, noting the resources and effort required to attend court proceedings.
Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and that the matter had been adjourned about four times at the instance of the defence.
Fusika subsequently gave the court a chronology of events dating back to June 22, 2026, when he assumed conduct of the case, in an attempt to demonstrate that the defence had acted diligently.
The proceedings later became heated when Kehinde rose to make further submissions and Fusika interrupted him, describing his conduct as that of a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor.
The remark drew an immediate rebuke from Justice Umar, who warned the senior lawyer against further outbursts.
The judge warned that any repeat of such conduct could lead to his referral to the “appropriate disciplinary bodies.”
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence’s case, saying he could not proceed further with the hearing.
At the previous sitting, the defence withdrew its subpoena seeking to compel DSS Director-General Ajayi to testify after the prosecution argued that the evidence sought through the witness had already been admitted twice during the trial.
The Federal Government is prosecuting Sowore on a two-count charge of cyberbullying over his alleged description of President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in posts on his official X and Facebook accounts.
Sowore has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
