The Department of State Services (DSS) on Monday, August 3, 2026. prayed a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to foreclose the defence in the ongoing trial of the Presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, for allegedly frustrating his trial.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore for alleged criminal defamation, cyberstalking and incitement, over posts he made on his social media platforms in 2025 calling President Bola Ahmed Tinubu a “criminal”.
Counsel to the DSS, Akinloku Kehinde, SAN, made the request by way of an application before Justice Mohammed Umar after Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, sought an adjournment in the matter.
When the case was called, Olumide-Fusika informed the court that the matter was scheduled for continuation of defence, adding that he had been reliably informed that a DSS witness was in court to represent the Director General of DSS, Mr Oluwatosin Ajayi.
He added that “unfortunately, it will not be possible for us to proceed”, saying that he filed an application since July 22 requesting the judge to attest to some documents which he planned to use in leading the subpoenaed witness, but discovered a few minutes to the beginning of hearing that the request had just been granted.
Olumide-Fusika said; “We filed an application on 22nd July, 2026, and we were told that your lordship has not approved it. We only discovered that the court approved it since 27th July, few minutes before the court began sitting”.
He blamed the court registry for the mix-up.
But, counsel to the DSS opposed the excuse given by the defence, stressing that it was part of a dilatory tactic to prolong the trial.
The defence counsel therefore submitted that at the last adjourned date, it was agreed by all parties that a nominated officer from the DG of the DSS would appear in court to testify for the defence.
According to Kehinde; “That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution and the essence of the witness being in court is to be cross-examined on Exhibit DW-D tendered on July 22 before this court.
“It is trite that when an application is made to the court in a case by the defence, it is the responsibility of the applicant to follow up,” the defence counsel said.
Kehinde therefore urged the court to foreclose Sowore’s case, arguing that he was merely wasting the court’s time and further said that the court had repeatedly granted Sowore opportunities which had been deliberately and persistently frustrated.
He argued that the court is entitled to invoke its discretionary case management powers, adding that it would not amount to a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing.
Relying on Section 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Kehinde argued that the constitution only guarantees an opportunity to be heard, and not an unlimited right to delay proceedings.
The defence counsel also cited a 2011 Supreme Court decision between Segun Ogunsanya against the State to support his argument, thus submitted that the Supreme court held that deliberate attempts to stall a trial should not be entertained by the court.
Accordingly, Kehinde urged the court to make a consequential order directing parties to file their final written addresses.
In his response, the defence counsel, Olumide-Fusika, SAN, disagreed with the submission, stressing that the prosecution failed to address the facts placed before the court.
Olumide-Fusika accused Kehinde of blaming every problem on the defence, including his own refusal to produce a subpoenaed witness.
Responding to the prosecution’s submission that the defence ought to have followed up on its application, Olumide-Fusika said they were not in a position to determine when the judge signed the application since the communication would be through the registry.
Olumide-Fusika cited Section 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act to back his argument, saying that if he had planned to delay proceedings, he wouldn’t have come to court since the court had already commenced its vacation.
“If he (Kehinde) doesn’t want to cooperate with me, and he wants us to be fighting…” Olumide-Fusika stated, a development that prompted the interjection of the judge, who drew the attention of Olumide-Fusika to the fact that he had just taken over the case, and reminded him that the defence had been delaying the matter since March when the prosecution closed its case.
“I have been on the Bench for 22 years. We have junior counsel here. This is not good. This should be the last time. If you are no longer interested in the case, you should say so. You cannot behave in my court in that manner,” Justice Umar warned.
The judge accordingly, adjourned the matter until September 20, for continuation of the defence.
