Sahara Reporters publisher and activist Omoyele Sowore, on Friday, refused to enter his defence in his ongoing cyberbullying trial in which he is accused of falsely calling President Bola Tinubu “a criminal.”
Since 8 May, when the court dismissed Mr Sowore’s no-case submission, there has been a back-and-forth on the issue of him entering his defence.
Mr Sowore, a two-time presidential candidate gearing up to run again for the presidency against Mr Tinubu in 2027, however, insisted that the trial judge Mohammed Umar withdraw from the case.
On Friday, the prosecution lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the court that the day’s hearing was slated for the defence to open its case, but no lawyer appeared for Mr Sowore.
Mr Sowore told the judge that his legal team said they were afraid to appear before him, so he would be representing himself.
“The matter according to what I heard is for defence. However, my lawyers said they are afraid to appear before you because of the humiliation they suffer before this court. I shall be representing myself, pending when I will constitute new lawyers,” Mr Sowore said, maintaining that it was his constitutional right to choose lawyers to represent him.
Sowore applies for judge’s withdrawal
He then informed the court of an application filed on Thursday, 4 June, and served on the prosecution Friday morning.
He told the judge he intended to move the application, which is for the judge’s recusal. The application was brought under section 36 (1), (5) and (6) of the Nigerian Constitution.
Mr Kehinde said he had no objection to the hearing of the application.
Moving the motion, Mr Sowore explained that the application was for the judge to return “the case file to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge.”
He also asked for time to prepare himself, since he was now representing himself in the case and urged the court to grant his application.
Reacting, Mr Kehinde raised concerns about the signing of the application. He said there was no name attached to the motion paper as the counsel that prepared it.
The judge, after checking the application, said he presumed it was signed by the first defence counsel on record, Marshal Abubakar.
He cautioned the prosecution against raising technical issues on the application. He said he wanted to give the defendant fair hearing to the best of his knowledge.
Mr Umar added that technical moves from the prosecution would not be condoned, but said time would be given to respond if needed.
Following the caution, Mr Kehinde then applied orally on point of law to respond to the application and file his objection later. The court granted it.
In response, the prosecution lawyer described Mr Sowore’s application as an abuse of the court process. He said it was meant to “annoy and irritate the court.”
He submitted that the court was bound by its record. He recalled that a letter dated 22 May 2026 from the Chief Judge directed that the matter should proceed, and that the letter was made available to all parties.
He explained that that was not withstanding a subsisting order of the court that defence must commence and “the defence could be foreclosed if the defendant was not ready.”
He urged the court to refuse the application in its totality and to throw away what he called “the tantrums of the defendant and his lawyers, so the business of the day” could proceed.
Responding, Mr Sowore said, considering that he was now representing himself, he needed time to prepare.
On the other hand, the judge said he would have to go through the bulky application before deciding whether or not he would recuse himself. He adjourned the case to Monday, 8 June.
When Mr Sowore insisted on more time, the judge reminded him of his order for daily hearing.
But Mr Sowore pressed further. He told the court to take judicial notice that he had been interested in the case from the beginning. He said he appreciated the judge for allowing him to represent himself, but insisted he needed time to engage a lawyer, “at least one week,” preferably after Democracy Day on 12 June.”
When Mr Kehinde insisted that the court had already made an order, the judge said the court would decide when to rule. He added that he wanted to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
The judge therefore adjourned the matter until 15 June for ruling on the application. He noted that if the application succeeds, he would step aside from the case.
Back-and-forth on defence
Earlier on Thursday, the judge rejected a request by Mr Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, to adjourn further hearing in the case until after the court’s vacation.
He then ordered daily hearing in the matter from Friday and directed the defendant to open his defence.
This followed submissions by the prosecuting lawyer Mr Kehinde, who told the court that the matter was fixed for 4 June for parties to receive the response of the Chief Judge to a letter Mr Sowore wrote on 19 May. The letter asked that the case be reassigned to another judge.
Mr Kehinde said he was served on 26 May with the Chief Judge’s response dated 22 May. He told the court that the request for reassignment was declined and that the court was directed to continue hearing the case. He then urged the court to order the defendant to enter his defence.
Responding, Mr Abubakar argued that part of the Chief Judge’s response suggested that a formal application should be filed so the issue could be heard in open court.
But Mr Kehinde disagreed with that interpretation. “The letter from the Chief Judge of this court did not ask the defendant or his counsel to file an application for recusal,” he said.
“So, it is disingenuous for counsel to read into the letter an interpretation that the Chief Judge did not include.”
Following the disagreement, Judge Umar requested a copy of the letter and read it in open court. After reviewing the letter, the judge held that the defence lawyer’s interpretation was wrong.
“From the content of the letter, there is nowhere the defendant is asked to file an application before this court,” the judge said. “This court is not denying the defendant the right to file any application. This can be done anytime before judgment.”
Mr Umar also explained that the case had reached the stage where the defendant was expected to open his defence. He then directed Mr Sowore to proceed.
After the ruling, Mr Abubakar again sought an adjournment until after the court’s vacation to enable his client participate in next year’s presidential election.
Mr Kehinde opposed the application. He said the criminal trial had no link to political activities and added that the court had already ordered daily hearing and must enforce it
“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 defendants facing a criminal trial,” he said. Mr Kehinde maintained that the defence must either proceed or risk being foreclosed.
Subsequently, Judge Umar adjourned the matter till Friday 5 June for the defendant to open his defence.
Backstory
Mr Sowore had, on 20 May, refused to enter his defence after the court dismissed his no-case submission.
His lawyer, Mr Abubakar, told the court at the time that Mr Sowore personally wrote the Chief Judge, John Tsoho, seeking reassignment of the case.
The request followed the court’s ruling that a prima facie case had been established against him. The defence had argued that no sufficient case was made out to require him to open a defence.
After the ruling, Mr Sowore applied orally for the judge to recuse himself on grounds of alleged bias. The court directed that a formal application be filed.
The case has also drew attention after an incident on 16 March, when the judge ordered Mr Abubakar to step out of the bar and kneel during proceedings. Other lawyers later intervened.
The Nigerian Bar Association condemned the incident.
Charges
Mr Sowore was initially charged alongside X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook parent companies on 5 December 2025.
READ ALSO: VDM: Bayo Onanuga confirms arrest of mastermind behind AI-generated Tinubu voice notes
He was accused of falsely calling President Tinubu a criminal via his X and Facebook accounts. He rebuffed SSS’ demand for him to delete the posts.
Subsequent amendment to the charges later dropped both tech companies, leaving Mr Sowore as the sole defendant. The number of counts was also reduced from five to two. He was rearraigned in January and pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution closed its case after calling one witness from the State Security Service (SSS). Mr Sowore later filed a no-case submission, which the court dismissed, paving the way for the order that he enter his defence.
