The trial of activist and politician Omoyele Sowore on alleged defamation charges filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) was on Monday adjourned after a heated exchange between counsel for both parties disrupted proceedings.
The confrontation began after Sowore’s lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), applied for an adjournment, arguing that documents approved by the court on July 27 were only released to the defence on Monday, leaving insufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of its next witness, a DSS official.
Counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), opposed the application, describing it as a deliberate attempt to delay the trial and urging the court to foreclose the defence’s case.
His submission triggered a sharp exchange between both senior advocates, with Olumide-Fusika rejecting the allegation and accusing the prosecution of acting as a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor.
Addressing Justice Mohammed Garba Umar, Olumide-Fusika said the defence had been reliably informed that a DSS official was present in court in compliance with a subpoena issued to the agency’s Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi. However, he argued that the defence could not proceed because it had only just received the certified true copies (CTCs) of court records required for its case.
According to him, the defence applied for the certified documents on July 22, 2026, but was repeatedly informed by the court registry that the trial judge had yet to approve the request. He said the defence later discovered that Justice Umar had in fact granted the approval on July 27.
“Obviously, the fault is not from Your Lordship’s end. It is a registry issue. The document is prefatory to the continuation of the defence,” Olumide-Fusika submitted.
Opposing the application, Kehinde argued that the defence had failed to diligently pursue its request at the registry and was unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings.
He reminded the court that both parties had agreed at the previous sitting that a nominated DSS officer would appear to testify for the defence, adding that the prosecution had fulfilled its obligation by producing the witness.
“That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution,” he said, noting that the witness was in court to testify in relation to Exhibit DWD.
Kehinde urged the court to foreclose the defence, arguing that several opportunities had already been granted without meaningful progress.
“We further submit that it is a discretionary case management procedure, and it is not a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing. Section 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees only the opportunity to be heard, not an unlimited right to delay the matter,” he argued.
Responding, Olumide-Fusika maintained that the defence had acted diligently and should not be blamed for delays caused by the court registry.
He argued that the prosecution had ignored the facts before the court and instead sought to portray the defence as deliberately frustrating the trial.
According to him, if the defence’s intention had been to delay proceedings, it could have insisted on the personal appearance of the subpoenaed DSS Director-General rather than accepting a nominated officer.
Relying on Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act, he argued that the requested documents were material to the defence’s intended cross-examination and dismissed allegations of delay as “insulting”, given the time and resources invested in preparing for the case.
Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and had sought about four adjournments.
In response, Olumide-Fusika gave the court a detailed account of events dating back to June 22, 2026, when he took over the defence, to demonstrate that every step taken had been in compliance with the court’s directives.
Proceedings, however, took a dramatic turn when Kehinde rose to make further submissions and Olumide-Fusika interrupted him, describing the prosecuting counsel as a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor.
The remark drew an immediate rebuke from Justice Umar, who warned the senior advocate against further outbursts and cautioned that any repeat of such conduct could lead to his referral to the appropriate disciplinary authorities.
The judge subsequently adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence, saying the hearing could not proceed in the circumstances.
