A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Thursday, June 4, 2026, rejected the request by Omoyele Sowere, the Presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) to postpone his cyberbullying trial until after the judicial vacation.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over allegations that he made false claims against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and also referred to the President as “a criminal” in posts shared on his X and Facebook accounts.
The court presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the application for adjournment filed by the counsel to activist and publisher of SaharaReporters, Marshall Abubakar and directed Sowere to begin his defence on Friday, June 5, 2026.
Justice Umar also declared that all further hearings would proceed day-to-day until the case is concluded and also said that adhering to the schedule, thus refused any attempt to delay to the proceedings.
At Thursday’s proceedings, the prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, said the case was fixed for June 4, to get the Chief Judge’s response to a May 19, 2026 letter from Sowore requesting that the case be assigned to another judge.
Kehinde also said he was served on May 26, with a copy of the Chief Judge’s response, dated May 22, in which the defendant’s request was declined and the court was ordered to continue hearing the case.
The prosecuting lawyer then applied that the judge direct the defendant to enter his defence.
But, in his response, Abubakar noted that a portion of the Chief Judge’s response directed the defendant to file a formal application so that it could be heard in open court.
Abubakar therefore urged the court to adjourn the case until after the court’s forthcoming vacation to enable his client to participate in next year’s presidential election.
Kehinde quickly faulted Abubakar’s interpretation of the Chief Judge’s response, stressing that the case before the court had nothing to do with political activities in the country.
According to Kehinde; “The letter from the Chief Judge of this court did not ask the defendant or his counsel to file an application for recusal.
“So, it is disingenuous for counsel to read into the letter an interpretation that the Chief Judge did not include in the letter,” he told the court.
Following a disagreement between both lawyers on the content of the Chief Judge’s response, Justice Umar called for a copy of the letter and read through it, following which he ruled that Abubakar was wrong.
In the words of Justice Umar; “From the content of the letter, there is nowhere the defendant is asked to file an application before this court. This court is not denying the defendant the right to file any application. This can be done anytime before judgment,” he declared.
Justice Umar further said that the current stage of the case merely required the defendant to enter his defence, thus ordered Sowore to enter his defence.
The court also ordered that hearing in the case proceed daily, in line with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
Following the judge’s order, Abubakar sought for an adjournment until after the court’s vacation for the defendant to open his defence.
The request of Abubakar was quickly and vehemently opposed by Kehinde, SAN, who said that the court having ruled and ordered a daily hearing, the ruling of the court was in consonance with the law.
According to Kehinde; “The law is that the defendant shall proceed with his defence. There is no option. We are ready. There is no room for dilatory practice for defendant facing a criminal trial.
“The option left at this point is for the defence to continue or simply be foreclosed. It is either they continue or they are foreclosed,” he submitted.
Accordingly, Justice Umar adjourned until June 5, for the defence to open his case.
