KEY POINTS
• A Federal High Court in Abuja has directed Omoyele Sowore to begin his defence in a criminal defamation case.
• The case involves allegations that Sowore called President Bola Tinubu a “criminal” in social media posts.
• The trial will proceed on a day-to-day basis after the court rejected an adjournment request.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered human rights activist and African Action Congress presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, to open his defence in a criminal defamation case filed against him over alleged comments made against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Mohammed Umar issued the directive on Thursday after dismissing an application by Sowore’s counsel seeking an adjournment of the case until after the court’s vacation period.
The court further ordered that the trial should proceed on a daily basis in line with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, with Sowore scheduled to begin his defence on Friday, June 5, 2026.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services over allegations that he made defamatory statements against President Tinubu on social media.
He is accused of describing the President as a “criminal” in posts published on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts, an allegation the prosecution says amounts to criminal defamation.
The case has drawn significant public attention due to its political implications and Sowore’s status as a prominent activist and opposition figure.
Prosecution Urges Court to Proceed With Trial
During Thursday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that the matter had previously been adjourned to allow for a response from the Chief Judge regarding a letter written by the defendant.
The letter was connected to Sowore’s request that the case be reassigned to another judge.
Kehinde told the court that the Chief Judge had already declined the request and directed that the trial continue before Justice Umar.
He therefore urged the court to compel the defendant to enter his defence without further delay.
In response, Sowore’s counsel, Marshall Abubakar, argued that the Chief Judge’s correspondence suggested that a formal application could be filed regarding recusal of the trial judge.
He also requested that the matter be adjourned until after the court’s vacation, arguing that it would allow his client to participate in political activities ahead of the next presidential election cycle.
However, the prosecution opposed the request, insisting that the proceedings should continue as required under criminal trial procedures.
After reviewing the Chief Judge’s response, Justice Umar agreed with the prosecution’s interpretation of the document.
The judge ruled that the letter did not instruct the defendant to file any further application before the court and clarified that Sowore’s rights to file motions remained intact but did not justify delaying the trial.
The court held that the matter had already reached the stage where the defendant must present his defence.