A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday, adjourned till June 30, 2026 to rule on an application filed by activist Omoyele Sowore, seeking the restoration of his bail earlier granted by the court and the setting aside of a bench warrant issued against him.
The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the matter after parties in the matter adopted their processes in the application.
The court had on June 16, revoked Sowore’s bail, and issued a bench warrant for his arrest after he failed to appear in court for his trial in the two count charges bothering on defamation of Tinubu as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria preferred against him by the Department of State Services (DSS) on behalf of the federal government.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore, who is the publisher of Sahara Reporters, an online media platform for alleged criminal defamation over claims that he referred to President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in posts made on his official X and Facebook accounts.
Sowore pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him.
Justice Umar had on Monday, ordered the remand of the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) at the Kuje Correctional Centre in Abuja pending the determination of his application seeking a stay of execution of an earlier order revoking his bail.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Sowore’s counsel, R.O. Adakole, alongside C.S. Etonyeaku, holding the brief of Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), informed the court that the defendant had filed a motion on notice dated June 17 and filed on June 19, 2026.
The application, brought pursuant to Sections 35(4), 36(1) and 6(6)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Sections 169 and 352 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, sought 12 reliefs.
Among the reliefs sought were an order setting aside the court’s June 16 order revoking the defendant’s bail, an order vacating the bench warrant issued against him, and an order restoring the status quo and the earlier bail conditions.
The defence said it relied on a 34-paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Emmanuel Larry, and a written address filed in support of the application.
The defence Counsel further informed the court that a “better” 36-paragraph affidavit, deposed to by one Sodiq Temitope, was filed on June 24, alongside a reply on points of law dated June 23.
Adopting the processes, the defence urged the court to “grant the application as prayed in the interest of justice. We also urge the court to discountenance the affidavit of the complainant.”
Responding, prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), said the federal government had filed a 25-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by one Moses Madara, and a written address in opposition to the application.
He said, the prosecution was relying on all the paragraphs of the affidavit, particularly paragraphs 10 to 23.
“We shall be relying on the aforementioned processes, urging your Lordship to refuse the application, as the applicant has not placed truthful facts before this honorable court that is capable of swaying the mind of the court to exercise its discretion in favor of the applicant,” Kehinde said.
After hearing the parties, Justice Umar adjourned the matter till June, 30, 2026 for ruling.
Following the adjournment, the defence orally applied for Sowore to be released to his legal team pending the ruling, undertaking to produce him in court on June 30.
The prosecution opposed the request, describing it as “a little bit absurd” and argued that such an application ought to be made formally to enable the prosecution to respond.
In his reply, the defence argued that releasing the defendant would not interfere with the court’s ruling and that the application was within the court’s discretion.
Counsel also informed the court that he had received information that Sowore was in a bad state of health and urged the court to grant the request.
The prosecution, however, reminded the court of “the optics of the matter” but left the decision to the discretion of the court.
Justice Umar pointed out that granting the request would defeat the purpose of adjourning the case to prepare his ruling, noting that he was yet to go through the processes filed by both parties.
The judge subsequently denied the application, and ordered that the defendant be returned to court for the ruling on June 30, 2026.
END
Comments