Proceedings in the alleged defamation trial of activist and politician Omoyele Sowore were abruptly halted after a tense exchange between lawyers representing the defence and the Department of State Services (DSS) disrupted proceedings at the Federal High Court.
The courtroom drama unfolded when Sowore’s lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), requested an adjournment, explaining that certified court documents approved on July 27 were only released to the defence on Monday, leaving insufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of the next defence witness, a DSS official.
The application was strongly opposed by the DSS counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), who accused the defence of deliberately delaying the trial and urged the court to close Sowore’s defence.
Kehinde argued that both parties had previously agreed that a DSS officer would appear in court to testify and that the prosecution had fulfilled its obligation by producing the witness. He maintained that the defence should have actively followed up on its application for the certified true copies (CTCs) at the court registry instead of seeking another adjournment.
Olumide-Fusika rejected the allegation, insisting that the delay stemmed from administrative issues within the court registry rather than any attempt to frustrate the proceedings. He told Justice Mohammed Garba Umar that the defence applied for the documents on July 22, but was repeatedly informed that the request had not been approved, only to later discover that approval had actually been granted on July 27.
The senior advocate argued that the documents were essential to the defence’s case and stressed that the team had acted diligently throughout the proceedings. He also dismissed claims of unnecessary delay, noting that the defence could have insisted on calling the Director-General of the DSS, Oluwatosin Ajayi, as a witness if its intention had been to prolong the trial.
Tensions escalated further when Olumide-Fusika interrupted Kehinde during additional submissions, describing him as a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor. The remark drew an immediate warning from Justice Umar, who cautioned the defence lawyer against further outbursts and warned that repeated misconduct could lead to disciplinary action.
Before adjourning the matter, Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and that several previous adjournments had been granted at the defence’s request. He nevertheless ruled that the hearing could not continue under the circumstances.
The case was subsequently adjourned to September 20, 2026, for the continuation of the defence.
