FG re-arraigns Sowore over fresh two-count charge 

The Federal Government has again brought human rights campaigner, Omoyele Sowore, before the court on a fresh two-count amended charge bordering on alleged cyberstalking of President Bola Tinubu.

Sowore, who denied the allegations, was accused of using his X and Facebook accounts to describe Tinubu as a “criminal”.

When the matter came up at the Federal High Court, the counsel representing the Department of State Services (DSS), Akinlolu Kehinde, informed Justice Mohammed Umar that the prosecution had revised the charge sheet, dropping X and Facebook as defendants and retaining Sowore as the only party standing trial.

While the prosecution declared its readiness to proceed with the hearing and confirmed that a witness was present in court, Sowore’s lawyer, Abubakar Marshal, opposed the move.

Marshal argued that the prosecution failed to attach details of the witness and the sworn statement to the amended charge. He referenced Section 36 (6) of the Nigerian Constitution, which mandates that the names and depositions of witnesses must be included and served alongside the charges.

Responding, Kehinde urged the court not to entertain further delays, insisting that previous adjournments were mostly at the request of the defence. He maintained that continuing to postpone the matter would not promote fair hearing.

He thereafter applied for the trial to begin immediately, but Marshal objected once again, stressing that the prosecution breached provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act by not front-loading the statements of the defendant and the identities of the witnesses.

According to him, the Federal Government is required to supply the defence with a full list of witnesses, their identities and summaries of their expected testimonies.

Kehinde, however, countered that such procedural requirements are applicable in Magistrates’ Courts, adding that where witnesses are intelligence officers, the defence could apply for a stand-down or seek an adjournment to allow for effective cross-examination.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the matter until January 22 for the commencement of trial.