Court Warns Sowore: Bail May Be Revoked Over Absence From Cybercrime Trial

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja has warned that the bail granted to politician and publisher Omoyele Sowore could be revoked if he fails to appear at the next hearing of his ongoing cybercrime trial.

The warning came during Thursday’s proceedings after Sowore and his legal team were absent from court despite reports that a hearing notice had been duly served.

According to information monitored by Akahi News, the judge also indicated that an arrest warrant could be issued to compel Sowore’s appearance in court should he fail to attend the next scheduled hearing.

The development marks another significant moment in the legal proceedings involving the activist and media publisher, whose case has attracted national attention.

Prosecution Questions Sowore’s Absence

At Thursday’s sitting, the prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that Sowore failed to appear despite being notified of the hearing through his legal representatives.

The prosecutor noted that the court’s registry confirmed that the hearing notice had been served on the defendant through his lawyers, just as the prosecution had also received its own notice.

According to insights gathered by Akahi News, Kehinde argued that there was no justification for the absence of the defendant, especially since he is expected to be present at every stage of his trial.

The prosecuting lawyer further pointed out that the day’s proceedings were meant for the defence to conclude its cross-examination of the first prosecution witness.

However, the hearing could not proceed because neither Sowore nor any member of his legal team—reportedly numbering about 30—was present in court.

This unexpected absence prompted the prosecution to request decisive action from the court.

Prosecution Seeks Bail Revocation

Citing Sections 352(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, the prosecution urged the court to revoke Sowore’s bail and issue a bench warrant for his immediate arrest.

According to the prosecutor, such a measure would ensure that the defendant appears in court to face the charges against him.

Akahi News gathered that the prosecution argued that court proceedings must be respected and that defendants are expected to comply fully with legal processes.

The request raised a fundamental legal question about the balance between judicial authority and a defendant’s right to fair trial procedures.

Judge Gives Sowore “Benefit of the Doubt”

In his ruling, Justice Mohammed Umar acknowledged that the defendant had indeed been served with a hearing notice through his lawyers.

However, the judge also noted that Sowore had consistently attended previous court sessions since the trial commenced late last year.

The court further observed that past adjournments in the case had occurred at the request of both the prosecution and the defence.

Because this was reportedly the first time the defendant had been absent from the trial, the judge said it was appropriate to give him the benefit of the doubt.

According to Akahi News, the judge decided not to revoke the bail at this stage.

However, he issued a strong warning.

Justice Umar stated that if Sowore fails to appear at the next hearing, the court would not hesitate to grant the prosecution’s request to revoke his bail and issue a warrant for his arrest.

The case was subsequently adjourned to March 16 for continuation of trial.

Allegations Against Sowore

Omoyele Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over allegations that he made false claims against President Bola Tinubu in posts published on his social media accounts.

The prosecution alleges that Sowore referred to the president as a criminal in messages posted on his X and Facebook platforms.

Authorities argue that the posts constitute offences under Nigeria’s cybercrime laws.

However, the case has sparked intense debate about freedom of expression, political criticism, and the limits of online speech in a democratic society.

According to observers monitored by Akahi News, the outcome of the case could have broader implications for how Nigeria interprets digital speech within its legal framework.

A Larger Question About Law and Expression

Beyond the courtroom drama lies a deeper issue confronting modern societies.

Social media has transformed the way political opinions are expressed and shared.

Criticism that once appeared in newspapers or speeches now travels instantly across digital platforms.

But this raises complex questions.

Where does political criticism end and criminal liability begin?

Should online speech be treated differently from traditional forms of expression?

And in a democracy, how can societies protect both freedom of expression and the dignity of public institutions?

These questions continue to shape legal debates not only in Nigeria but around the world.

As the trial resumes on March 16, many observers will watch closely to see how the court balances legal procedure, digital speech, and the broader principles of justice.

Akahi News will continue to monitor the proceedings and provide updates on the case and its implications for Nigeria’s evolving legal and political landscape.

By Joseph Iyaji | Akahi News
Joseph Iyaji is a journalist, educator, and founder of Akahi G. International, Akahi Tutors, and Akahi News. Read more about him here.

Akahi News www.akahinews.org