The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the alleged cyberbullying case filed against Sahara Reporters publisher, Omoyele Sowore, until June 15 for ruling on his application asking Justice Mohammed Umar to recuse himself from the trial.
Sowore, who is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services, told the court on Friday that he was ready to represent himself temporarily, pending the reconstitution of a new legal team.
The case was earlier fixed for Friday for Sowore to open his defence after the court, on Thursday, declined an oral application by his counsel, Marshall Abubakar, for a long adjournment and ordered that the trial should proceed on a day-to-day basis.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore over allegations that he made false claims against President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” in posts on his X and Facebook accounts.
When the matter was called on Friday, the prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, was in court, but Sowore’s lawyer, Abubakar, was absent.
Sowore, who was already in the dock, was asked by the judge about the whereabouts of his counsel. He told the court that, following the previous day’s ruling that the trial would continue day-to-day, his lawyers were afraid to appear before the court.
“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 reconstitute a new legal team, I shall be representing myself before your lordship,” Sowore said.
He added that it was his constitutional right to choose lawyers to represent him in any trial in Nigeria.
Sowore then informed the court that he had filed two applications, one of which had already been served on the prosecution.
According to him, the application was a motion on notice filed on June 4, 2026, seeking the recusal of the judge.
He sought leave of court to move the application, and the DSS lawyer did not object.
Moving the motion, Sowore asked the court to direct Justice Umar to recuse himself or withdraw from the case on grounds of alleged bias and humiliation.
He relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair hearing, and urged the court to grant his request.
Responding, Kehinde argued that the application was fundamentally defective, claiming that the copy served on the prosecution did not bear the name of the counsel who prepared or signed it.
“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.
However, Justice Umar noted that the copy in the court’s file was signed by a lawyer.
“From my record here, the person that signed it is Marshall Abubakar,” the judge said.
Kehinde replied that the copy served on him was not signed.
The judge, however, said the court would presume that the application was signed by Marshall Abubakar and warned the prosecution against relying on technical objections.