…As court sets to rule on DSS counsel’s subpoena
A member of the legal team of the Mr. Omoyele Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) and SaharaReporters publisher, Treasure Adefisoye, on Monday, October 26, 2026, told a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja that she was not aware of the provision of Section 83:3 of the Evidence Act.
Adefisoye admitted this while responding to questions from the lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, after she sought to tender printouts of online reports purporting that the Department of State Services (DSS), was considering pausing Sowore’s cyber-bullying trial until after the January 16, 2027, presidential election.
Sowore recently opened his defence in a charge of alleged cyber-bullying brought against him by the DSS, accusing him of describing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as “a criminal” in an August 2025 post on his social media handles.
However, at the continuation of Sowore’s defence, on Monday, Adefisoye, who is a member of Sowore’s legal team led by Olumide Fusika, SAN, told the court that she was not very conversant with the Evidence Act.
The defence had sought the leave of the court to tender copies of the printouts of the media reports, but responding, Kehinde, SAN, who objected to the admissibility of the printed documents, asked the defence lawyer if she was aware of the provision of Section 83:3 of the Evidence Act, to which she said “no”.
Accordingly, the lead prosecution lawyer asked Adefisoye to read out Section 83:3 of the Evidence Act.
The lawyer read out the Section which states that any document made during the pendency of a matter cannot be tendered in evidence in the same matter.
After listening to boith the prosecution and defence lawyers, the court presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned to Tuesday, October 26, 2026 for ruling on the objection raised by the DSS against calling its lead prosecution counsel by subpoena to testify as a defence witness for Sowore.
The prosecution told the court that the subpoena was in bad faith, diversionary and contrary to the law and all known judicial practice.
