The legal battle involving activist, publisher, and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore has taken a fresh turn as members of his former legal team defended his actions and questioned the conduct of the court handling his cybercrime trial.
Speaking during a televised interview, human rights lawyer Abdulkarim Musa, who previously represented Sowore and the Take It Back Movement before withdrawing from the case, maintained that the activist's prosecution revolves around political speech and raises broader concerns about freedom of expression and judicial fairness in Nigeria.
Sowore is currently facing trial over allegations linked to a social media post in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a "criminal." The case intensified after a Federal High Court revoked his bail and ordered his remand in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Abdulkarim Musa disclosed that members of Sowore's legal team withdrew from representing him after concluding that courtroom proceedings had become hostile toward both the defendant and his lawyers.
According to him, the legal team became uncomfortable following what they described as unusual directives from the trial judge, including repeated instructions for Sowore to remove his wristwatch and glasses over suspicions that he was recording court proceedings.
Musa further alleged that one of the lawyers on the defence team was directed to kneel before the judge an action he argued has no basis under Nigerian law.
He said the cumulative events created the impression that Sowore would struggle to receive a fair hearing before the court.
The lawyer disputed the legality of the court's decision to revoke Sowore's bail, insisting that the activist was not properly served with a hearing notice before the court resumed proceedings.
He explained that Sowore had appeared in court on the scheduled date for the ruling of an interlocutory application but the court did not sit. Afterwards, an application seeking an adjournment was filed due to his temporary absence from the country.
According to Musa, the court later reconvened without notifying Sowore, yet proceeded to revoke his bail and issue a bench warrant.
He argued that under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), a criminal proceeding involving the determination of an interlocutory application can proceed without the physical presence of the defendant.
The lawyer also maintained that before revoking bail, the court ought to have invited Sowore's sureties and afforded him an opportunity to explain his absence.
Musa revealed that Sowore's legal team filed applications seeking to stay the execution of the bail revocation order and to set it aside entirely.
He argued that the court should have determined those applications before allowing the remand order to be executed.
According to him, previous judicial decisions have established that pending applications challenging an order should ordinarily be resolved before enforcement.
The human rights lawyer also criticized the manner in which DSS operatives took Sowore into custody inside the courtroom following the revocation of his bail.
He described the action as contrary to longstanding courtroom practice, arguing that court premises traditionally provide temporary protection for litigants while security agencies intending to re-arrest individuals usually wait outside the courtroom.
Addressing criticism that Sowore deliberately provokes controversy, Musa rejected that characterization, insisting the activist is simply outspoken in confronting corruption and governance issues.
He argued that the statements made by Sowore fall within the realm of political speech and should not be criminalized.
According to Musa, politicians, including President Bola Tinubu before assuming office, have historically used strong language against political opponents, making it inappropriate to prosecute similar expressions once in government.
He maintained that criticism even when expressed forcefully is an essential component of democratic governance.
Asked whether the defence would pursue appeals if the trial court eventually rules against Sowore, Musa said any further legal action would depend on the client's instructions.
However, he expressed hope that the court would ultimately recognize what he described as the weaknesses in the prosecution's case.
The case has continued to generate nationwide debate over the balance between protecting reputations, enforcing cybercrime laws, and safeguarding constitutional rights to free expression.
While government supporters argue that no citizen is above the law and that allegations against public officials should be substantiated in court, civil rights advocates insist that criminal prosecutions over political criticism risk creating a chilling effect on democratic discourse.
The outcome of the trial is expected to remain a closely watched test of judicial independence, due process, and the limits of political speech in Nigeria.
Comments
Post a Comment