•Sowore in court, today
The trial of activist and politician Omoyele Sowore on alleged defamation charges filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) has been adjourned after a heated exchange between lawyers for both parties disrupted proceedings in court.
The confrontation began after Sowore’s lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), sought an adjournment, saying documents approved by the court on July 27 were only released to him today, leaving him without sufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of his next witness, a DSS official.
Counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), opposed the request, describing it as a delay tactic and urging the court to foreclose the defence, reports Channels TV.
The submission by Kehinde sparked a war of words between the two senior lawyers, with Olumide-Fusika rejecting the allegation and accusing the prosecution of persecution.
Fusika told Justice Muhammed Umar that although the defence had been “reliably informed” that a witness from the Department of State Services was in court pursuant to a subpoena issued to the agency’s Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi, it could not proceed because it was yet to receive the certified court records.
According to him, the defence applied for the CTC on July 22, 2026, but was repeatedly informed by the registry that the trial judge had not approved the request.
He said the defence later discovered that Justice Umar had in fact approved the application on July 27.
“Obviously, the fault is not from Your Lordship’s end. It is a registry issue. The document is prefatory to the continuation of the defence,” Fusika submitted.
Opposing the application, Kehinde accused the defence of deliberately frustrating the trial and keeping the case unnecessarily on the court’s docket.
He reminded the court that at the last adjourned date, both parties had agreed that a nominated DSS officer would appear to testify for the defence and noted that the prosecution had fulfilled its own obligation.
“That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution,” he said, adding that the witness was present to testify in relation to Exhibit DWD.
Kehinde argued that it was the duty of the defence, as the applicant, to diligently pursue its request at the registry rather than waiting until the day of hearing.
He urged the court to foreclose the defence’s case, arguing that repeated opportunities had been granted without progress.
“We further submit that it is a discretionary case management procedure, and it is not a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing. Section 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees only the opportunity to be heard, not an unlimited right to delay the matter, as in the instant case,” he argued.
Responding, Fusika said the prosecution had failed to address the facts placed before the court and had instead chosen to blame the defence for circumstances beyond its control.
He maintained that the defence had not engaged in dilatory tactics and noted that it could have insisted on the attendance of the subpoenaed DSS DG as a witness if its intention was merely to delay proceedings.
He further argued that the defence could not determine when the judge approved its application and could only rely on information supplied by the court registry.
Relying on Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act, he said the documents sought were material to the defence’s intended line of questioning.
Fusika also dismissed the allegation that the defence was deliberately delaying the matter, saying such a suggestion was “insulting”, considering the expense and effort involved in attending court proceedings.
Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and that the matter had been adjourned about four times at the defence’s instance.
Fusika then gave the court a detailed chronology of events from June 22, 2026, when he assumed conduct of the case, in a bid to demonstrate that the defence had acted diligently throughout.
Proceedings, however, took a dramatic turn when Kehinde rose to make further submissions, and Fusika interrupted him, referring to the prosecuting counsel’s behaviour as being that of a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor.
The remark prompted an immediate rebuke from Justice Umar, who warned the senior advocate against any further outbursts.
As tempers flared, trial judge Justice Mohammed Garba Umar cautioned both counsel over their conduct, warning that any further disruption could attract disciplinary action.
The judge cautioned that any repeat of such conduct would lead to his referral to the “appropriate disciplinary bodies”.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence, stating that he could not proceed further with the hearing.
