By Peter Omopo
The Department of State Services (DSS) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to foreclose the defence of former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, accusing him of deliberately delaying proceedings in his ongoing trial over alleged criminal defamation, cyberstalking and incitement.
The application was made on Monday by counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), before Justice Mohammed Umar after Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide Fusika (SAN), sought an adjournment during the continuation of the defence.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the DSS over social media posts made last year in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”
When the matter came up for hearing, Olumide Fusika informed the court that although a representative of the Director General of the DSS was present to testify, the defence could not proceed because an application filed on July 22 seeking the court’s certification of documents intended for use during the witness’s examination had only been approved shortly before proceedings commenced.
The defence attributed the delay to the court registry, stating that it only became aware that the application had been granted moments before the sitting began.
Opposing the request for adjournment, Kehinde argued that the explanation was another attempt by the defence to frustrate the trial. He maintained that it was the responsibility of the applicant to follow up on any application filed before the court and noted that the prosecution had fulfilled its obligation by producing the nominated witness as previously agreed.
The senior advocate urged the court to close the defence’s case, contending that Sowore had repeatedly failed to utilise opportunities granted by the court and was merely prolonging the proceedings. He argued that the court was empowered under its case management authority to prevent unnecessary delays without infringing on the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Kehinde relied on Sections 36(4) and 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as a 2011 Supreme Court decision, to support his argument that while the Constitution guarantees parties the opportunity to be heard, it does not permit the abuse of judicial process through deliberate delays.
In response, Olumide Fusika rejected the prosecution’s submissions, insisting that the defence was not responsible for the delay. He argued that communication regarding the approval of the application rested with the court registry and that the defence could not determine when the judge had signed the documents.
He further maintained that there was no intention to stall the proceedings, adding that the defence had appeared in court despite the commencement of the court’s annual vacation.
Justice Umar, however, reminded defence counsel that the matter had experienced repeated delays since the prosecution closed its case in March. The judge cautioned against conduct capable of disrupting court proceedings, stressing that counsel must maintain professionalism and indicating that such behaviour would not be tolerated.
Following arguments from both parties, Justice Umar adjourned the case until September 20 for the continuation of the defence.
