Judiciary
Court Threatens Sowore’s Lawyer With Contempt Over Alleged Rudeness
A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday threatened to commit the lead defence counsel to politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore, to prison for contempt following a heated exchange during proceedings.
The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, issued the warning to Sowore’s lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, after the counsel allegedly raised his voice repeatedly while making submissions in court.
At one point during the tense proceedings, the judge ordered the lawyer to “come out and kneel down” in open court for what he described as disrespectful conduct. However, other lawyers present quickly intervened and pleaded with the judge to forgive their colleague.
Sowore is currently being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over alleged cyber bullying and claims that he made false statements about Bola Ahmed Tinubu, whom he allegedly described as “a criminal” in posts on his social media platforms, including X and Facebook.
The confrontation began when Abubakar raised objections to the date proposed by the court for the defence to open its case. The lawyer insisted that the date was not convenient for him and suggested that the matter be adjourned until July.
Shortly after the defence completed the cross examination of the prosecution’s sole witness, the prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), announced the closure of the prosecution’s case and urged the court to direct the defence to open its case.
Abubakar, however, informed the court that the defence intended to file a no case submission and requested a long adjournment.
Kehinde opposed the request, arguing that the defence was employing dilatory tactics aimed at delaying the trial. He suggested that the matter should instead proceed on a daily basis.
Justice Umar noted that while the prosecution had conducted its case swiftly, the defence spent four days cross examining the prosecution’s only witness. The judge also ruled out daily sittings but fixed April 13 for the adoption of final written addresses on the defence’s no case submission.
The situation escalated when Sowore, speaking from the witness box, began explaining how the proposed date could clash with his party’s forthcoming primaries. At the same time, his lawyer also addressed the court, describing how his client was preparing to challenge President Tinubu politically.
“This court belongs to all of us. This court is not for some people alone. It belongs to all of us,” Abubakar reportedly shouted.
Despite repeated warnings by the judge to lower his voice, the lawyer continued speaking loudly, prompting Justice Umar to warn that he could be committed for contempt and ordering him to kneel before the court.
Realising the gravity of the situation, other lawyers in the courtroom, led by Kehinde, immediately rose and appealed to the judge to pardon the defence counsel.
While the lawyers were still pleading, the judge adjourned the case until April 13 for the adoption of written addresses and rose from the bench.
Earlier in the proceedings, the prosecution had informed the court that Sowore appeared to have a recording device while in the dock.
When allowed to respond, Sowore denied the allegation, stating that he only had his eyeglasses, a power bank and his phone with him.
Justice Umar reminded the defendant that the court had earlier directed that no gadgets be brought into the dock. He then ordered Sowore to hand the items to his lawyer through a court official.
At the start of the sitting, Abubakar had also requested that the case be stood down until 12:30 p.m., saying he had only just learnt about the day’s proceedings and was in another court without the case file.
Despite objections from the prosecution, the judge granted the request.
When the case resumed shortly before 1 p.m., Abubakar proceeded to cross examine the prosecution’s sole witness, DSS official Cyril Nosike, for about two hours.
The defence counsel also tendered several newspaper publications during the cross examination, asking the witness to read from some of the documents.
A poll conducted by Amnesty International has revealed deep public concern about the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary, with nearly 97 percent of respondents saying they believe Nigerian judges are not independent.
The poll, published on the social media platform of Amnesty International Nigeria, asked Nigerians a simple question: “Are Nigerian judges free and independent?” The overwhelming majority of participants voted “No,” while only a small fraction said “Yes.”
According to the results shared by the human rights organisation, more than 500 respondents participated in the poll, with about 482 people indicating that judges in Nigeria are not independent, representing roughly 97 percent of the votes. Only around 20 respondents believed the judiciary operates independently.
The outcome of the poll has sparked conversations online about the state of judicial independence in Nigeria, particularly regarding concerns about political influence, corruption, and the perceived vulnerability of court decisions to external pressure.
Legal analysts have long warned that a lack of public confidence in the judiciary could weaken the rule of law and undermine democratic institutions. Studies on the Nigerian justice system have also noted that many citizens distrust the judiciary, often due to perceptions that judicial decisions may be influenced by factors outside legal merit.
Advocates for judicial reforms say strengthening the independence of courts, ensuring transparency in judicial appointments, and protecting judges from political interference are key steps needed to restore public trust in the system.
The poll result adds to ongoing debates in Nigeria about the integrity of the justice system and the broader need for reforms aimed at strengthening democratic governance.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has overturned a Federal High Court judgment that removed a member of the House of Representatives, Abubakar Gummi, from office after he defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
In a unanimous decision delivered on Friday, a three-member panel of the appellate court ruled that the lower court erred when it declared Gummi’s seat vacant on the basis of his defection from the PDP to the APC.
Gummi, who represents the Gummi/Bukkuyum Federal Constituency of Zamfara State, had left the PDP citing internal leadership crises within the party at the national level.
The Federal High Court in Abuja had earlier, on October 30, 2025, ordered his removal from the House of Representatives following a suit filed by the PDP and the party’s Zamfara State chairman, Jamilu Jibomagayaki, challenging the defection.
However, while delivering the appellate court’s judgment, Justice Oyebiola Oyewumi held that the trial court was wrong to sack the lawmaker, noting that the appellant had the right to leave his party in view of the prevailing circumstances within the PDP.
The court also affirmed that a political office holder may seek another platform if the stability of the party under which he was elected becomes threatened.
The appellate court consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the earlier ruling that removed the lawmaker from office. It also awarded ₦1 million in costs against the PDP and its Zamfara chairman in favour of Gummi.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has warned that the bail granted to activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore could be revoked if he fails to appear at the next hearing in his ongoing trial over alleged defamatory comments against Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The warning was issued on Thursday by Justice Mohammed Umar after Sowore and members of his legal team were absent when the case was called.
Sowore, the convener of #RevolutionNow and publisher of Sahara Reporters, is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over claims that he referred to President Tinubu as “a criminal” in posts shared on his social media accounts, including X and Facebook.
During the proceedings, counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the defence to conclude cross-examination of the first prosecution witness. He told the court that the defendant had been duly served with a hearing notice through his lawyers but failed to appear.
Kehinde noted that no explanation had been provided either by Sowore or any member of his legal team for their absence, despite the defence reportedly having about 30 lawyers.
Citing Section 352(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the prosecution urged the court to revoke Sowore’s bail and issue a bench warrant to compel his appearance.
However, Justice Umar declined the request for now, noting that the defendant had consistently attended previous hearings since the trial began late last year. The judge said the court would give Sowore the benefit of the doubt since it was his first absence.
He warned, however, that if the defendant fails to appear at the next hearing, the court would not hesitate to revoke his bail and issue an arrest warrant.
The court subsequently adjourned the case until March 16 for continuation of the trial and ordered that another hearing notice be served on the defence.