The legal battle involving activist, politician and publisher of SaharaReporters, Omoyele Sowore, took another dramatic turn on Tuesday as the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned ruling on his application for the restoration of bail until June 30, while rejecting a request by his lawyers for his temporary release pending the determination of the application.
Sowore is currently facing prosecution by the Department of State Services (DSS) over comments in which he described President Bola Tinubu as “a criminal,” a case that has triggered nationwide debate over freedom of expression and the rights of government critics.
During proceedings, Sowore’s counsel, R.O. Adakole, who held brief for senior advocate Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), passionately urged the court to exercise its discretion and release the activist to his legal team pending the ruling on the bail restoration application.
Adakole argued that Sowore had never jumped bail since the commencement of the trial and had consistently honoured every court appearance. He maintained that there was no basis for continued detention and pleaded with the court to allow the activist remain with his legal representatives while awaiting the ruling.
Justice Mohammed Umar, however, declined the request, insisting that he needed sufficient time to study the affidavits and legal processes already before the court before making any determination. Despite repeated appeals by the defence, the judge refused to grant Sowore temporary release.
The development has intensified concerns among supporters, rights advocates and civil society organisations, many of whom have accused the court of adopting a harsh stance against the activist despite his record of compliance with court proceedings.
The controversy stems from the court’s decision on June 16, 2026, to revoke Sowore’s bail and issue a bench warrant for his arrest after he failed to appear for a scheduled proceeding.
The matter had earlier been adjourned for ruling on an application filed by Sowore seeking the recusal of Justice Umar from the case on grounds of alleged bias. The activist had argued that he no longer had confidence in the court’s ability to guarantee him a fair hearing.
Court records indicate that Sowore was present in court on June 15, 2026. However, proceedings could not continue due to the absence of the judge. The court registrar subsequently informed parties that the matter would resume the following day.
Through a letter dated June 15, Sowore requested an adjournment and proposed that the ruling be fixed for any convenient date on July 2, 3, 14, 15 or 17, 2026, or alternatively in September.
At the resumed sitting on June 16, counsel for the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that the defendant was absent and urged the court to revoke his bail. Kehinde argued that Sowore had failed to appear and should no longer enjoy the privilege of bail.
Justice Umar subsequently granted the application, revoked the bail and ordered the issuance of a bench warrant against the activist.
The decision immediately sparked outrage from local and international human rights organisations, many of which described the move as excessive and called for an urgent review of the order.
The controversy surrounding Justice Umar has also been fuelled by an earlier courtroom incident involving prominent human rights lawyer, Marshal Abubakar. During a previous cross-examination session involving a DSS official, the judge ordered Abubakar to kneel before the court, a directive that drew widespread condemnation from members of the legal profession and civil society groups who described it as degrading, humiliating and inconsistent with judicial decorum.
With the court now fixing June 30 for ruling on Sowore’s application, the case has evolved beyond a simple criminal prosecution into a major test of judicial independence, freedom of expression and the treatment of dissenting voices under President Tinubu’s administration.
As tensions continue to rise, activists, lawyers and democracy advocates across Nigeria are closely watching what many now regard as one of the most politically sensitive and controversial trials in the country.