The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday restored the bail of human rights activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, but imposed stringent conditions that have reignited debate over access to justice, political dissent, and the limits of judicial discretion in Nigeria.
Justice Muhammad Umar granted Sowore fresh bail in the sum of N200 million and directed him to provide two sureties before he can regain his freedom.
Under the conditions laid down by the court, one of the sureties must be a traditional ruler from Sowore’s community, while the second must own landed property within the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The activist was also ordered to surrender his international passport to the court registrar pending the conclusion of his trial.
The ruling effectively restores the self-recognisance bail earlier granted to Sowore but replaces it with significantly tougher requirements that critics say could amount to an onerous burden for a defendant standing trial over comments made against the country’s president.
Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in the 2023 elections, is facing a five-count charge filed by the Department of State Services (DSS), bordering on alleged cybercrime following remarks in which he described President Bola Tinubu as “a criminal.”
The case has drawn widespread attention within civil society and political circles, with supporters arguing that it raises fundamental questions about freedom of expression, while government authorities insist that no individual is above the law.
In December, Justice Umar had initially granted Sowore bail on self-recognition shortly after his arraignment. However, the court cautioned him against making public statements capable of inciting Nigerians against President Tinubu while the matter remained before the court.
The legal battle took a dramatic turn on June 16, when the court revoked Sowore’s bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest after he failed to appear for the continuation of proceedings.
Neither Sowore nor his legal representatives were physically present in court on the scheduled date.
Before the hearing, the activist had written to the court explaining that he would be unable to attend because of a prior engagement in Lagos and requested that the matter be adjourned.
The prosecution team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Akinlolu Kehinde, strongly opposed the request, describing Sowore’s absence as a deliberate delay tactic designed to frustrate the judicial process.
The DSS subsequently made an oral application seeking the revocation of his bail, which Justice Umar granted, leading to the issuance of a bench warrant against the activist.
Following the order, Sowore voluntarily returned to court on June 22, 2026, where he challenged both the bench warrant and sought the recusal of Justice Umar from further handling of the case.
The court, however, dismissed the application for recusal and directed that the activist be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing and determination of a fresh bail request.
Tuesday’s ruling has now restored Sowore’s liberty, albeit under far more stringent conditions.
The requirement that one surety must be a traditional ruler from his community and another a property owner within Abuja has generated fresh discussions among legal observers over whether such conditions, though within judicial powers, place an excessive burden on defendants in politically sensitive cases.
Human rights advocates have repeatedly argued that bail conditions should not be so severe as to amount to a denial of freedom through procedural obstacles, while others maintain that courts possess broad discretionary authority to impose terms deemed necessary to guarantee attendance at trial.
The Sowore case remains one of the country’s most politically charged legal battles, reflecting the enduring tensions between state institutions and outspoken critics of government policies.
For many observers, the latest decision represents a paradox: liberty restored, yet heavily conditioned by financial, social, and geographical requirements that critics say could test the very principle that bail exists to preserve—the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.