Sowore’s Cybercrime Trial: Court To Rule On DSS Subpoena As Defence Counsel Faces Evidence Act Questions

A lawyer on the defence team of online publisher and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, on Monday told a Federal High Court in Abuja that she was unfamiliar with Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act during proceedings in his alleged cybercrime trial.

The lawyer, Treasure Adefisoye, made the disclosure while being questioned by the Department of State Services (DSS) lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, over the admissibility of printed copies of online news reports tendered by the defence.

The reports allegedly indicated that the DSS was considering suspending Sowore’s cybercrime trial until after the January 16, 2027 presidential election.

Kehinde objected to the admission of the documents and asked Adefisoye whether she knew the provisions of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act. She answered in the negative.

At the prosecution counsel’s request, Adefisoye subsequently read the relevant provision, which states that certain statements made by an interested person while legal proceedings are pending or anticipated over a disputed fact are not admissible under the section.

Adefisoye is part of the defence team led by Olumide Fusika, SAN. The team had sought the court’s permission to tender the printed reports as evidence.

Sowore recently opened his defence in the case instituted by the DSS over an August 2025 social media post in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal”.

Meanwhile, the court has fixed Tuesday to deliver its ruling on the DSS’s objection to a defence subpoena seeking to compel the agency’s lead prosecuting counsel to testify as a defence witness.

The prosecution had urged the court to reject the subpoena, describing it as an act of bad faith and a diversionary move that was contrary to the law and established judicial practice.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Muhammad Umar adjourned the matter until Tuesday for a ruling on the objection.

The court’s decisions on the disputed news reports and the subpoena are expected to determine the next steps in the ongoing defence proceedings.