Sowore stands firm on judge's withdrawal in cyberbullying case

Sahara Reporters publisher and activist Omoyele Sowore, on Friday, refused to start his defence in his cyberbullying trial. He is accused of wrongly calling President Bola Tinubu “a criminal.”

Since 8 May, after the court dismissed Mr Sowore’s no-case submission, there have been back-and-forth discussions about him entering his defence. Mr Sowore, who has run for president twice and plans to run again against Mr Tinubu in 2027, insisted that the trial judge, Mohammed Umar, should withdraw from the case.

On Friday, the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the court that the hearing was set for the defence to begin. But no lawyer came for Mr Sowore. Mr Sowore told the judge that his legal team was scared to appear before him, so he would represent himself.

“The matter according to what I heard is for defence. However, my lawyers said they are afraid to appear before you because of the humiliation they suffer before this court. I shall be representing myself, pending when I will constitute new lawyers,” Mr Sowore said. He insisted it was his right to choose his lawyers.

He then informed the court about an application filed on Thursday, 4 June, and served to the prosecution on Friday morning. He said he wanted to move the application, which is for the judge’s withdrawal. The application followed section 36 (1), (5), and (6) of the Nigerian Constitution.

Mr Kehinde said he had no issue with the application being heard. When moving the motion, Mr Sowore explained that the application was for the judge to send “the case file to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge.” He also asked for extra time to prepare since he was now representing himself.

Mr Kehinde raised concerns about the application’s signing. He pointed out no name was attached to the motion paper as the lawyer who prepared it. The judge, after checking the application, presumed it was signed by the first defence counsel, Marshal Abubakar.

He warned the prosecution not to raise technical issues about the application. He said he wanted to give the defendant a fair hearing. Mr Umar added that technical objections from the prosecution would not be accepted, but time would be given for a response if needed.

After this caution, Mr Kehinde applied orally on a legal point to respond to the application and file his objection later. The court allowed it. In response, the prosecution lawyer called Mr Sowore’s application an abuse of the court process. He said it was meant to “annoy and irritate the court.”

He argued that the court was bound by its record. He recalled a letter dated 22 May 2026 from the Chief Judge, which directed that the matter should proceed. He explained that this was despite an existing order that defence must begin and “the defence could be closed if the defendant was not ready.”

He asked the court to reject the application completely and to dismiss what he called “the tantrums of the defendant and his lawyers, so the business of the day” could continue. In response, Mr Sowore said that since he was now representing himself, he needed time to prepare.

The judge said he would review the bulky application before deciding whether he would recuse himself. He adjourned the case to Monday, 8 June. When Mr Sowore asked for more time, the judge reminded him of his order for daily hearings.

But Mr Sowore pressed further. He reminded the court that he had been involved in the case from the start. He thanked the judge for allowing him to represent himself but insisted he needed time to find a lawyer, “at least one week,” preferably after Democracy Day on 12 June.

When Mr Kehinde insisted that the court had already made an order, the judge said the court would decide when to rule. He added that he wanted to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. The judge then adjourned the matter until 15 June for a ruling on the application. He noted that if the application succeeded, he would step aside from the case.

Earlier on Thursday, the judge turned down a request from Mr Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, to delay the hearing until after the court's vacation. He ordered daily hearings from Friday and told the defendant to start his defence.

This followed comments by the prosecuting lawyer, Mr Kehinde, who told the court that the matter was set for 4 June for parties to receive the Chief Judge’s response to a letter Mr Sowore wrote on 19 May. The letter asked for the case to be assigned to another judge.

Mr Kehinde said he received the Chief Judge’s response dated 22 May on 26 May. He told the court that the request for reassignment was turned down and that the court was directed to continue hearing the case. He urged the court to order the defendant to enter his defence.

Responding, Mr Abubakar argued that part of the Chief Judge’s response suggested that a formal application should be filed so the issue could be heard in open court. But Mr Kehinde disagreed with that interpretation. “The letter from the Chief Judge of this court did not ask the defendant or his counsel to file an application for recusal,” he said.

Mr Kehinde stated it was misleading for counsel to interpret the letter in a way not intended by the Chief Judge. Following the disagreement, Judge Umar requested a copy of the letter and read it in open court. After reviewing it, the judge held that the defence lawyer’s interpretation was incorrect.

“From the content of the letter, there is nowhere the defendant is asked to file an application before this court,” the judge said. “This court is not denying the defendant the right to file any application. This can be done anytime before judgment.”

Mr Umar also explained that the case had reached a point where the defendant was expected to open his defence. He directed Mr Sowore to proceed. After the ruling, Mr Abubakar again sought an adjournment until after the court’s vacation for his client to prepare for next year’s presidential election.

Mr Kehinde opposed the request. He said the criminal trial had nothing to do with political activities and added that the court had already ordered daily hearings. He stated the law required the defendant to proceed with his defence. There was no option. He insisted there was no time to delay for defendants in a criminal trial.

Judge Umar then adjourned the case until Friday, 5 June, for the defendant to open his defence. Mr Sowore had, on 20 May, refused to start his defence after the court dismissed his no-case submission.

His lawyer, Mr Abubakar, told the court that Mr Sowore wrote to the Chief Judge, John Tsoho, seeking to reassign the case. This request followed the court’s ruling that a prima facie case had been established against him. The defence argued that there was no sufficient case to require him to start his defence.

After the ruling, Mr Sowore applied orally for the judge to withdraw himself due to alleged bias. The court directed that a formal application should be filed. The case has also drawn attention after an incident on 16 March when the judge ordered Mr Abubakar to step out of the bar and kneel during proceedings. Other lawyers later stepped in to help.

The Nigerian Bar Association condemned that incident. Mr Sowore was initially charged alongside X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook's parent companies on 5 December 2025. He was accused of falsely calling President Tinubu a criminal on his X and Facebook accounts. He refused the SSS’ demand to delete the posts.

Later changes to the charges dropped both tech companies, leaving Mr Sowore as the only defendant. The number of charges was also reduced from five to two. He was rearraigned in January and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution closed its case after calling one witness from the State Security Service (SSS). Mr Sowore later filed a no-case submission, which the court dismissed, allowing the order for him to enter his defence.