Alleged Cybercrime: DSS Prays Court to Foreclose Sowore’s Defence for Allegedly Frustrating Trial

The Department of State Services (DSS) on Monday prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja to foreclose the defence in the ongoing trial of online publisher and presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) Omoyele Sowore, for allegedly frustrating his trial.

The DSS is prosecuting Sowore for alleged criminal defamation, cyberstalking and incitement, over posts he made on his social media platforms last year calling President Bola Tinubu a “criminal.”

DSS counsel, Akinloku Kehinde, SAN, made the application before Justice Mohammed Umar after Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, sought an adjournment in the matter.

When the case was called, Olumide-Fusika informed the court that the matter was scheduled for continuation of defence.

He stated that he had been reliably informed that a DSS witness was in court to represent the Director General of DSS, Mr Oluwatosin Ajayi, however, adding, “unfortunately, it will not be possible for us to proceed.”

According to the lawyer, he filed an application since July 22 requesting the judge to attest to some documents which he planned to use in leading the subpoenaed witness, but discovered a few minutes to the beginning of hearing that the request had just been granted.

“We filed an application on 22nd July, 2026, and we were told that your lordship has not approved it. We only discovered that the court approved it since 27th July, few minutes before the court began sitting,” he said, and went ahead to blame the court registry.

At this point, however, counsel to the DSS opposed the excuse preferred by the defence, arguing that it was part of a dilatory tactic to prolong the trial.

He submitted that, at the last adjourned date, it was agreed by all parties that a nominated officer from the DG of the DSS would appear in court to testify for the defence.

“That part of the agreement was kept in toto by the prosecution and the essence of the witness being in court is to be cross-examined on Exhibit DW-D tendered on July 22 before this court.

“It is trite that when an application is made to the court in a case by the defence, it is the responsibility of the applicant to follow up,” Kehinde said.

The senior lawyer, therefore, urged the court to foreclose Sowore’s case, arguing that he was merely wasting the court’s time.

He submitted that the court had repeatedly granted Sowore opportunities which had been deliberately and persistently frustrated, the court is entitled to invoke its discretionary case management powers.

He argued that this would not amount to a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing.

Relying on Section 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Kehinde argued that the constitution only guarantees an opportunity to be heard, and not an unlimited right to delay proceedings.

He also cited a 2011 Supreme Court decision between Segun Ogunsanya against the State to support his argument.

Kehinde, SAN, submitted that the apex court held that deliberate attempts to stall a trial should not be entertained by the court.

He, therefore, urged the court to make a consequential order directing parties to file their final written addresses.

Responding, Olumide-Fusika disagreed with the submission.

He argued that the prosecution had failed to address the facts placed before the court.

He accused Kehinde of blaming every problem on the defence, including its own refusal to produce a subpoenaed witness.

Responding to the prosecution’s submission that the defence ought to have followed up on its application, he said they were not in a position to determine when the judge signed the application since the communication would be through the registry.

He cited Section 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act to back his argument.

Olumide-Fusika added that if he had planned to delay proceedings, he wouldn’t have come to court since the court had already commenced its vacation.

“If he (Kehinde) doesn’t want to cooperate with me, and he wants us to be fighting,.. ” Olumide-Fusika stated, prompting the judge’s interjection.
He drew the attention of Olumide-Fusika to the fact that he had just taken over the case, and reminded him that the defence had been delaying the matter since March when the prosecution closed its case.

“I have been on the Bench for 22 years. We have junior counsel here. This is not good. This should be the last time. If you are no longer interested in the case, you should say so,” warned the judge, stressing, “You cannot behave in my court in that manner..
Justice Umar consequently adjourned the matter until September 20 for continuation of the defence.