The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled June 30, 2026, to rule on an application filed by activist and publisher, Omoyele Sowore, seeking the reinstatement of his bail and the reversal of a bench warrant issued for his arrest.
Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after both the defence and prosecution adopted their respective processes on Wednesday.
The court had earlier, on June 16, revoked Sowore’s bail and issued a bench warrant following his failure to appear for trial in a case involving allegations of cybercrime and criminal defamation.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over claims that he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in posts published on his X and Facebook accounts. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, defence counsel R.O. Adakole, alongside C.S. Etonyeaku, who represented Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), informed the court that the defendant had filed a motion on notice dated June 17 and submitted on June 19.
The application, brought under relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, seeks 12 reliefs. These include setting aside the June 16 order revoking Sowore’s bail, vacating the bench warrant issued against him, and restoring his previous bail conditions.
According to the defence, the application is supported by a 34-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Emmanuel Larry, as well as a written address. Counsel also disclosed that an additional 36-paragraph affidavit sworn to by Sodiq Temitope and a reply on points of law were filed on June 24 and June 23 respectively.
Urging the court to grant the application, the defence argued that it was in the interest of justice and asked the court to disregard the complainant’s affidavit.
In response, prosecuting counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) said the Federal Government had filed a 25-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by Moses Madara, along with a written address opposing the application.
Kehinde maintained that the applicant had failed to place truthful facts before the court that would justify the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the application.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Umar adjourned the matter until June 30 for ruling.
Following the adjournment, the defence made an oral application requesting that Sowore be released to his legal team pending the court’s decision, assuring the court that he would be produced on the next adjourned date.
The prosecution opposed the request, describing it as inappropriate and arguing that such an application should be formally filed to allow for a proper response.
The defence countered that granting temporary release would not affect the court’s pending ruling and further informed the court that Sowore was reportedly in poor health.
While acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns about the public perception of the case, Justice Umar noted that granting the request would undermine the purpose of the adjournment, as he had yet to review all the processes filed by both parties.
The court subsequently refused the application and ordered that Sowore remain in custody pending the ruling on June 30.
