Tempers flared on Monday at the Federal High Court in Abuja as the cyberbullying criminal trial of activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore was stalled following a heated exchange between defence counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), and prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), over another request for adjournment.
The drama unfolded before Justice Muhammed Umar after the defence informed the court that it could not proceed with its case because it had yet to obtain a Certified True Copy (CTC) of court documents it described as essential to the trial’s continuation.
Olumide-Fusika explained that although the defence had been informed that a Department of State Services (DSS) officer was present in court in compliance with a subpoena issued to the agency’s Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi, it could not continue without the certified records.
According to the senior advocate, the defence applied for the documents on July 22, 2026. Still, officials of the court registry repeatedly informed his team that the trial judge had not approved the request.
He, however, 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,” Olumide-Fusika submitted.
The prosecution opposed the application, accusing the defence of frustrating the trial through repeated requests for adjournment.
Kehinde reminded the court that at the last adjourned sitting, both parties agreed that a nominated DSS officer would testify for the defence and argued that the prosecution had fulfilled its own obligation by ensuring the witness was available.
Read Also: Court Admits Emefiele’s Statements in Alleged $4.5bn Fraud Trial, Rejects Torture Objection
“That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution,” he said, adding that the witness was present to testify regarding Exhibit DWD.
The prosecutor argued that the defence ought to have diligently followed up its application at the court registry rather than waiting until the hearing date before raising the issue.
He urged the court to close the defence’s case, contending that it had been granted several opportunities to proceed without making meaningful progress.
Kehinde further argued that case management decisions are within the court’s discretion and do not violate the constitutional right to a fair hearing.
“Section 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution guarantee only the opportunity to be heard, not an unlimited right to delay the matter, as in the instant case,” he submitted.
Responding, Olumide-Fusika rejected the allegation that the defence was deliberately delaying proceedings, insisting that the prosecution failed to address the circumstances surrounding the registry’s handling of the application.
He argued that if the defence intended to frustrate the proceedings, it could have insisted on compelling the DSS Director-General to appear personally in court in compliance with the subpoena.
The senior advocate also maintained that the defence could not determine when the judge approved its application and had relied solely on information supplied by the court registry.
Also Read: Ex-Minister Uche Nnaji Pleads Not Guilty to Certificate Forgery, Money Laundering Charges
Relying on Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act, he argued that the requested documents were material to the defence’s intended line of questioning.
Describing the allegation of deliberate delay as “insulting,” Olumide-Fusika noted the considerable expense and effort involved in attending repeated court proceedings.
Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and had obtained about four adjournments to continue its defence.
The defence counsel subsequently gave a detailed account of events from June 22, 2026, when he assumed conduct of the case, to demonstrate that the defence had acted diligently.
Proceedings later took a dramatic turn when Kehinde rose to make further submissions, and Olumide-Fusika interrupted him, describing the prosecutor as a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor.
The remark immediately drew the attention of Justice Umar, who cautioned the senior advocate against further outbursts.
The judge warned that any repetition of such conduct could result in his referral to the appropriate disciplinary authorities.
Following the exchanges, Justice Umar adjourned the matter until September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence, stating that the hearing could not proceed further.
At the previous sitting, the defence withdrew its subpoena seeking to compel the Director-General of the DSS 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 alleged cyberbullying, accusing him of describing President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” on his verified X and Facebook accounts. Sowore has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
