Omoyele Sowore, on Monday opened his defence in his ongoing trial over alleged defamation.
Sowore’s counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, called the first defence witness, Deji Adeyanju.
While being led in evidence by the lawyer, Adeyanju, a human rights lawyer and activist gave an evidence that President Bola Tinubu had publicly stated that citizens had the right to criticise and “even insult him” as part of democratic governance.
The witness also told the court that the president, in one of his remarks in Benue, urged the judiciary “not to allow itself to become an instrument of oppression” against critics of government.
He said President Tinubu made those remarks before Sowore, who is also the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC).
Earlier when the case was called, Olumide-Fusika said though the court gave an order for Sowore to open his defence, he said he was constrained.
He said he would need a television screen to play video recordings containing the president’s remarks or show some of the exhibits already before the court, including additional evidence they planned to bring.
He said prior to the commencement of trial, he approached the court registrar and told about the request for a tv screen.
“We also approached the DCR (deputy chief registrar) and we understand it was too late for today,” he said.
The lawyer, however, said that when his question gets to where the video evidence would be played, an adjournment would be sought.
Counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, did not object.
He however urged Olumide-Fusika to make proper arrangement before the next adjourned because the prosecution concluded its case since March.
When Adeyanju was called into the witness box, the DSS lawyer disagreed with Sowore’s lawyer.
He submitted that Adeyanju was a counsel on record in the team of the defendant’s lawyers.
He argued that a counsel in the list of defendant’s lawyers cannot appear as a witness at the same time.
But Olumide-Fusika responded that Kehinde’s objection was “totally groundless.”
“My lord, since I have come into this matter, I have never announced Adeyanju as counsel in this matter,” he said.
“My lord, I am talking law. The law says that if I have any objection in the course of the proceedings, I should give my reasons at the end of the proceedings which is what ACJA provides for,” Kehinde responded.
Justice Mohammed Umar however, said Adeyanju could testify while Kehinde may raise objections in the final address.
Testifying, Adeyanju said he is a legal practitioner, whose address is located at No 4, Embu Close, Wuse 2 Abuja.
He said he knows the defendant.
“He is Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters and a presidential candidate of AAC for the 2027 general elections.
“He is also a notable Nigerian and a human rights activist, ” Adeyanju said.
The witness said he knew why Sowore was being prosecuted.
“I am aware that he was alleged to have posted a message on social media; X, formerly known as Twitter and Facebook.
“He was alleged to have sent the message to social media handle of the president at @officalPBAT,” he said.
Adeyanju explained that social media platforms primarily serve as spaces for interaction among users.
He said users generally interact with those who follow them or with whom they already had an established connection.
Using his personal Facebook and X accounts as examples, the witness said another user can not simply send him a direct message without first meeting the platform’s requirements, such as becoming a friend or follower where applicable.
He added that he primarily used the platforms to express his views and interact with people who shared similar views or opinions.
According to him, his social media pages are his personal virtual home, where only content I choose to publish become visible to others.
He distinguished between a user’s public social media account and private messaging services.
According to him, X Chat and Facebook Messenger are separate messaging applications that allow private communication between users, unlike public posts made on X or Facebook timelines.
Olumide-Fusika then referred the witness to the court’s ruling of May 8, which dismissed Sowore’s no-case submission and asked him to read a portion of the decision.
The witness thereafter testified about public statements made by President Tinubu, which he said affirmed the right of citizens to criticise public office holders and urged the judiciary not to become an instrument for suppressing critics.
Adeyanju told the court that he personally downloaded the videos and gave them to the defence lead counsel.
To satisfy the requirements for electronic evidence, he said he attached a certificate of compliance with the video recordings in a flash drive.
The defence lawyer then sought to tender the the certificate of compliance and the 2GB flash drive containing the video recordings, and the prosecution did not object.
Justice Umar then admitted the document and flash drive as exhibts.
Olumidi-Fusika then sought an adjournment to enable him play the videos by the next adjourned date via a Tv screen.
But Kehinde opposed the request and reiterated that the prosecution had closed its case in March and that the defence ought to have made the necessary arrangements earlier if it intended to play video evidence.
The judge, however, said that providing facilities required for the hearing of a case was the responsibility of the court rather than the parties.
Kehinde then reminded the court of a subsisting court order for Sowore’s bail conditions.
The senior lawyer informed the court that the defendant was yet to fulfil any of the bail conditions made by the court.
“We urge your lordship to make a necessary order for the remand of the defendant until the bail conditions are met,” he applied.
Kehinde said Sowore, who was released to a lawyer that appeared for him on the last adjourned date pending when he fulfilled the bail terms, was yet to meet the conditions.
He said the defendant had not deposited his international passport to the deputy chief registrar of the court, he had not produced a traditional ruler from his community as surety nor produced another surety who has a landed property in Abuja as ordered by court.
According to him, the defendant has not communicated to us whether that passport has been released to DCR.
The lawyer, who argued that the court order cannot be toiled with, said such orders are not made in vain.
However, Olumide-Fusika begged the court to exercise patience as the processes were ongoing for the perfection of the bail terms.
“It is incorrect that the conditions have not been met. When you meet a bail conditions, the verification will have to be made by the court and this is ongoing my lord,” he said.
After both lawyers’ submissions, Justice Umar held that although Sowore’s release order was signed on the last adjourned date, he will wait before the close of work to see what steps had been taken by the defence before making the order for Sowore’s remand.
themomentng reports that Justice Umar had on June 30, admitted Sowore to a N200 million bail with two sureties in the like sum.
The judge, who ordered that one of the sureties must be a traditional ruler from Sowore’s community, held that the other must be a land owner in Abuja.
He was also ordered to submit his travel document to the deputy chief registrar of the court, among other conditions.
Sowore’s bail revocation followed his failure to appear in court for his trial on Jine 16.
The DSS is prosecuting Sowore for allegedly making false claims against the person of the president in a post he made on his “X” and Facebook accounts.
