Again, former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, AAC, and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore fails to enter defence in his ongoing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja on cyberbullying related offences.
Sowore is being prosecuted for allegedly making false claims against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” in a post he made on his “X” and Facebook accounts.
When the case last came up on May 8, Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling, dismissed Sowore’s no-case submission and upheld the argument by the prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, that a prima facie case has been established against him to warrant his being called upon to enter a defence.
Recall that before adjournment, the court dismissed Sowore’s fundamental rights suit and awarded a N1.5 million fine to the Department of State Services, DSS and others.
Justice Umar then, ordered the defendant to enter his defence against the case already made out against him by the prosecution.
Shortly after the ruling, Sowore and his lawyer, Marshall Abubakar applied orally that the judge should withdraw from further handling the case on grounds of alleged bias.
Following the objection raised by prosecution counsel that such applications are usually made formal to enable the adverse party respond appropriately, Justice Umar ordered the defence to file a formal application on their request for the judge to recuse himself to enable the prosecution respond and for the court to make a ruling.
When the case came up on Tuesday, Abubakar told the court that his client has filed letters and applications to the court’s Chief Judge, demanding a reassignment of the case to another judge.
He said the applications, one filed personally by Sowore and the other by him (the lawyer) are accompanied with affidavits and exhibits containing reasons why they are asking that the case be reassigned to another judge.
Responding, the prosecution counsel said he was served on May 19 with the two letters filed by the defence on the same date.
He argued that what the defence has done is contrary to what the court ordered them to do on the last date, which was to file a formal application to the court on their request for the judge’s recusal.
He said: “All the processes that they have filed are of no moment. This was not the directive of the court. We are opposed to all they have done.”
The prosecuting lawyer urged the court not to allow the defence to detect that pace of the proceedings in the case.
He noted that the case has got to the stage where the defendant should enter his defence if he has and If he does not have he should tell the court so that the prosecution can make the appropriate application.
In his reply, Abubakar argued that the defence has done the appropriate thing and urged the court not to allow itself to be railroaded into taking steps that are alien to the administration of justice.
The defence lawyer urged the court to adjourn further proceedings in the case to await the decision of the court’s CJ on the letters they wrote.
Ruling, Justice Umar ordered the prosecution to file its response to the defence’s letters dated May 19 which are addressed to the Chief Judge and which have also been served on the prosecuting lawyer.
The judge adjourned further hearing till June 4 pending the outcome of the petition written by the defence to the court’s CJ.
(Editor: Terverr Tyav)
