The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 15 for ruling on an application filed by the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, seeking the recusal of the trial judge over alleged bias in his ongoing trial.
The decision followed the court’s dismissal of Sowore’s no-case submission, with the court holding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case requiring him to enter a defence.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over allegations of making false and defamatory statements against President Bola Tinubu, arising from social media posts in which he referred to the president as a “criminal” on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook.
At the resumed hearing, Sowore informed the court that he would be representing himself temporarily, pending the appointment of new legal representation or the reconstitution of his legal team. He told the court that his lawyers had withdrawn from active participation in the case, citing fears of intimidation and alleged “humiliation” during earlier proceedings.
He subsequently moved two applications already filed and served on the prosecution. The first sought an order compelling the trial judge to recuse himself on grounds of alleged bias, while the second requested that the case be referred to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.
The prosecution counsel opposed the applications, describing them as an abuse of court process intended to delay proceedings and provoke the court.
He argued that the court is bound by its records, including a directive from the Chief Judge that the matter should proceed before the current judge, and urged the court to dismiss the applications in their entirety.
The prosecution urged the court to disregard what it described as the defendant’s “tantrums,” insisting that the applications lacked merit and were designed to frustrate the trial.
In his brief ruling, Justice Mohammed Umar stated that he would review the processes filed by Sowore before making a determination on the recusal application.
The court thereafter adjourned the matter until June 15 for ruling.