Human rights activist and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, appeared before the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday as the trial in the case filed against him by the Department of State Services (DSS) resumed over his description of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as “a criminal.”
The case, before Justice Mohammed Umar, arose from public comments made by Sowore in which he referred to the President as “a criminal”—remarks the DSS contends constitute an offence warranting criminal prosecution.
Sowore arrived at the court early on Monday, accompanied by his legal team, while counsel representing the DSS and the Federal Government were also present for the continuation of proceedings in what has become one of the most closely watched political trials in the country.
The prosecution forms part of a series of legal confrontations involving the outspoken activist, who has consistently criticised the Tinubu administration over allegations of corruption, poor governance, insecurity and violations of human rights.
At the previous hearing, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), made a dramatic appearance before the court after the Director-General of the DSS, Tosin Ajayi, failed to honour a subpoena directing him to testify in the matter.
Rather than producing the DSS chief, the Attorney-General sought to assume control of the prosecution from A.T. Kehinde (SAN), who had previously represented the Federal Government in the case.
The move was immediately challenged by Sowore’s lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), who argued that the Attorney-General could not lawfully take over the prosecution without first filing the appropriate application and formally notifying the court in line with established legal procedure.
Although Fagbemi maintained that all criminal prosecutions ultimately emanate from the Office of the Attorney-General, the defence insisted that due process could not be bypassed and that any application for substitution of counsel must first be properly brought before the court.
Following objections from the defence, the Attorney-General withdrew the oral application and instead requested a brief consultation with opposing counsel to agree on a fresh hearing date.
During the proceedings, Olumide-Fusika informed the court that if the prosecution failed to produce the DSS Director-General for cross-examination, the defence would be prepared to question any more senior DSS official presented as a witness.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until Monday for the continuation of trial after both parties agreed on the date.
The judge also proposed hearing the matter during the court’s annual vacation despite not being designated a vacation judge. However, the defence declined the suggestion, explaining that while counsel would honour Monday’s sitting, they would thereafter proceed on their scheduled annual leave.
The previous proceedings ended on a lighter note when Fagbemi commended Olumide-Fusika for what he described as a “fantastic job” and jokingly suggested that the senior advocate should be charging his client substantial legal fees.
Responding, Olumide-Fusika remarked that he was not defending a wealthy client but “a fighter for the public.” Fagbemi then turned to Sowore and quipped, “Yes, I agree he is a fighter for public good, but there are limits,” drawing laughter from those present in the courtroom.
Justice Umar also disclosed that he had approved the release of Sowore’s passport to enable him attend to an application at the United States Embassy, even as the politically sensitive trial continues to attract nationwide attention.