JUSTICE Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja has threatened to revoke the bail granted to politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore, in his ongoing trial on charges bordering on cybercrime.
Justice Umar, who issued the warning on Thursday, also said he would issue an arrest warrant for Sowore’s forceful production in court if he fails to attend the next hearing.
The judge’s position followed observations and applications made by the prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), who noted that Sowore chose not to attend court despite evidence that he was served with a hearing notice through his team of lawyers.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly making false claims against President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as a criminal in a post he made on his X and Facebook accounts.
At Thursday’s hearing, Sowore was absent, and so were all his lawyers, numbering about 30.
Reacting to the development, Kehinde noted that the business of the day was for the defence to conclude its cross-examination of the first prosecution witness.
The prosecuting lawyer said he confirmed from the court’s registry that a hearing notice was served on the defendant through his lawyers, just as the prosecution was also served.
Kehinde said there was no reason why the defendant, who should ordinarily be present in court at every sitting, was not in court and had also failed to provide any explanation for the absence of both himself and his lawyers.
Citing the provisions of Section 352(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Kehinde prayed the court to, among other things, order the revocation of the bail granted to the defendant and issue a bench warrant for his immediate production in court to face his trial.
Ruling, Justice Umar confirmed that Sowore was duly served with a hearing notice through his lawyers but noted that the defendant had always attended court since the case began late last year.
The judge also observed that past adjournments in the case had been at the instance of both the prosecution and the defence.
He said the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt since it was the first time he had been absent from his trial.
