Human rights activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, on Friday informed the Federal High Court in Abuja that he would temporarily represent himself in his ongoing alleged cyberbullying trial pending the reconstitution of a new legal team.
Sowore made the declaration before Justice Mohammed Umar shortly after proceedings resumed for the opening of his defence in the case instituted by the Department of State Services.
The activist is facing prosecution over allegations that he referred to President Bola Tinubu as “a criminal” in posts published on his X and Facebook accounts.
At the resumed hearing, only counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, appeared in court. When asked by the judge about the absence of his lawyers, Sowore explained that members of his legal team had withdrawn from further appearance following what he described as humiliation suffered during earlier proceedings.
According to him, his lawyers were unwilling to continue appearing before Justice Umar after the court ordered day-to-day hearing of the matter.
“Our lawyers indicated to me they are afraid before you and will not appear any longer because of the humiliation they suffered before this court,” Sowore told the court.
He added that until he secured another legal team, he would personally handle his defence, insisting that the Constitution guarantees his right to choose legal representation.
Sowore subsequently informed the court that he had filed two separate applications, one of which sought the recusal of Justice Umar from the case over alleged bias and humiliation.
The defendant prayed the court to withdraw from further handling of the matter and also requested that the case be reassigned to another judge by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
While moving the application, Sowore relied on provisions of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution dealing with fair hearing and impartiality of the court.
Counsel to the DSS did not oppose the defendant moving the motion but challenged the validity of the application, arguing that the copy served on the prosecution lacked the signature of counsel who prepared it.
“This application is fundamentally incompetent, as there is no name of the counsel that prepared the motion and attached to the motion paper,” Kehinde argued.
Justice Umar, however, stated that the copy contained in the court’s file had been signed by Marshall Abubakar, one of Sowore’s lawyers.
The prosecution further described the application as an abuse of court process intended to frustrate proceedings and irritate the court.
Kehinde argued that the court was bound by its records, including a letter allegedly issued by the chief judge on May 22 directing that the trial should continue.
He also reminded the court that there was already a subsisting order directing the defence to commence immediately, warning that the defence risked being foreclosed if Sowore failed to proceed.
The DSS lawyer, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the applications and disregard what he termed “tantrums” from the defendant and his legal team.
In his response, Justice Umar said he would need time to study the processes filed by Sowore before delivering a ruling on the recusal request.
Initially, the judge proposed adjourning the matter until Monday for ruling, but Sowore appealed for additional time to enable him secure new lawyers, also citing the forthcoming Democracy Day celebration.
“My lord, take judicial notice that I have attended this case from day one. I am just asking for indulgence for at least a week to come,” Sowore pleaded.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case until June 15, 2026, for ruling on the applications and continuation of defence.
The case has continued to attract public attention amid debates surrounding free speech, cybercrime laws and political dissent in Nigeria.
