The presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, has disclosed plans to summon All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain Joe Igbokwe as a defence witness in his ongoing trial over his description of President Bola Tinubu as a criminal.
Sowore’s counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, disclosed this on Monday before the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Umar Mohammed, as proceedings continued in the case involving allegations of cyberbullying and criminal defamation against the activist.
Olumide-Fusika told the court that the defence had lined up several witnesses whose testimonies would support Sowore’s case, specifically identifying Igbokwe as one of the individuals it intended to subpoena to testify.
Igbokwe, a prominent APC chieftain in Lagos State, had earlier featured in the proceedings during the cross-examination of Michael Jego, an investigating officer with the Department of State Services (DSS), who appeared before the court as a subpoenaed witness.
Jego had told the court that Igbokwe was among Nigerians who reacted to Sowore’s social media post and called on the activist to retract his statement about Tinubu.
Following the testimony, Olumide-Fusika informed the court that the defence intended to subpoena Igbokwe and other individuals to testify in the case.
The disclosure came amid a disagreement between the defence and prosecution over whether Sowore’s legal team should reveal the number of witnesses it intended to call before presenting its case.
The prosecution counsel, Kehinde Akinlolu, SAN, urged the court to direct the defence to provide the information, arguing that the prosecution needed adequate notice to prepare for the continuation of the trial.
“My Lord, trials are not conducted by ambush. The defence should let us know how many witnesses they are calling so that we can be prepared to prosecute them,” Akinlolu said.
He also invoked the prosecution’s constitutional right to adequate time and facilities to prepare its case.
In response, Olumide-Fusika argued that he was under no legal obligation to disclose the identities or number of his witnesses before calling them to testify, challenging the prosecution to identify a specific provision of the law requiring such disclosure.
The senior advocate maintained that revealing the witnesses would amount to professional courtesy rather than a legal obligation, expressing dissatisfaction with his previous dealings with the prosecution.
“It is a matter of courtesy if I give it to him. But he has not shown me any courtesy in this matter. All the bridges between us are burnt. I am not interested in showing him the courtesy of disclosing my witnesses,” Olumide-Fusika said.
He referred to an earlier disagreement over a court date that allegedly coincided with his daughter’s graduation ceremony, accusing the prosecution of subsequently issuing press statements suggesting that he was attempting to evade trial.
Olumide-Fusika also alleged that the prosecution had reneged on an understanding reached in the presence of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN.
Despite his refusal to disclose the full list of defence witnesses, the lawyer specifically identified Igbokwe as one of the individuals he intended to call, adding that the prosecution could contact the APC chieftain.
The disagreement prompted Justice Mohammed to question whether the dispute between the two senior lawyers extended beyond the legal issues before the court.
Akinlolu subsequently asked the judge to provide guidance on how the matter should proceed, distancing himself from the personal disagreements between the lawyers.
“My Lord, I would respectfully ask for the direction of the court on the way forward in this matter. I am not going to get involved in all these personal shenanigans,” the prosecutor said.
The judge appealed to both lawyers to remain calm and cautioned them against repeating the conduct witnessed during the previous proceedings.
Justice Mohammed warned that further misconduct by the two Senior Advocates of Nigeria could be referred to the appropriate authority for disciplinary action.
The court subsequently adjourned the case until Monday, October 26, for the continuation of the trial.