Human rights activist and publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, on Friday indicated his readiness to represent himself in court pending the re-constitution of a new legal team in the ongoing alleged cyberbullying charge.
Sowore told Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja shortly after the case was called to open his defence.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Umar had, on Thursday, fixed today for the defendant to open his defence.
The judge, who declined to grant an oral application by Sowore’s lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, for a long adjournment, ordered that the trial shall be conducted day-to-day.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly making false claims against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” in a post he made on his “X” and Facebook accounts.
Upon resumed hearing on Friday, only DSS lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, was in court when the case was called.
Abubakar, Sowore’s counsel, was conspicuously absent.
When the defendant, who was already in the dock, was asked by the judge the whereabouts of his lawyer, he said upon the ruling of the judge the previous day that the trial would proceed on a day-to-day basis, his lawyers were afraid to appear before Justice Umar.
“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.
“And pending the time I am able to re-constitute a new legal team, I shall be representing myself before your lordship,” he said.
Sowore told the court that it was his constitutional right to choose lawyers to represent him in any form of trial in Nigeria.
The defendant then informed the court that he had two applications which he had filed and one of it had already been served on the prosecution.
“A motion on notice filed yesterday, June 4, 2026, and served on the prosecutor earlier this morning.
“The application is motion on notice for a recusal,” he said.
Sowore, therefore, sought the permission to move the application for recusal and the DSS lawyer did not object.
Moving his motion, the defendant prayed the court for an order directing the judge to recuse himself or withdraw from the case in view of bias and humiliation.
He cited Section 36(1)(5) (6) of the 1999 Constitution to back his submission and urged the court to grant his relief.
Kehinde, who urged the court to also grant him the leave to respond on points of law, argued that Sowore’s application was fundamentally defective.
“This application is fundamentally incompetent as there is no name of the counsel that prepared the motion and attached to the motion paper,” he said.
But the judge said a lawyer signed the copy of the application in the court file.
