Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja has revoked the bail of human rights activist and presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, and ordered the issuance of a bench warrant following the defendant’s failure to appear for a scheduled proceeding on June 16, 2026.
Sowore is facing trial on charges bordering on cyberbullying President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, following a criminal case filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) over his public declaration that “Tinubu is a criminal.”
The matter was adjourned to Monday, June 15, 2026, for ruling on an application filed by the activist asking the judge to recuse himself over allegations of bias, claiming that he could not get justice before the trial judge.
Sowore was in court on Monday, June 15, 2026, but the matter could not proceed as scheduled due to the absence of the judge, who later directed the court registrar to inform all parties in the case to return on Tuesday, June 16, 2026.
Sowore, through a letter dated June 15, 2026, applied for an adjournment, requesting that the matter be fixed for ruling on any convenient date between June 2, 3, 14, 15, or 17 of July 2026, or in September.
The letter read, “I am the defendant in the above referenced charge.
“The matter was adjourned till Monday, the 15th day of June, 2026 for ruling on the Motion for recusal I respectfully moved on the last adjourned date. I was in the Court on the 15th day of June, 2026 from 8.20 A.M until I was told by the registry that the Court would not be sitting at about 11.57 A.M without any reason advanced or prior notification given.
“I respectfully apply that the matter be set down for the ruling either on July 2nd, 3rd, 14th 15th, 17th, or September 8th, 9th, 10th or any other date subsequent the Court may deem convenient.
“Please endeavor to bring the content and existence of the instant correspondence to the attention of his Lordship.”
“Whilst anticipating your expeditious consideration of our letter, please accept, Honourable Minister as usual, our esteem professional regards, always,” he added.
Surprisingly, at the resumed hearing on Tuesday, the judge, while considering the matter, recalled that the defendant had previously appeared before the court in connection with the case.
In his submission, counsel for the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, told the court that the defendant was absent without providing any reason. He therefore urged the court to revoke the defendant’s bail.
However, the prosecution counsel opposed the application, arguing that the defendant was fully aware of the court’s directive that the matter would come up on June 16, 2026, and had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the absence.
The prosecution submitted that the defendant had shown disregard for the court process, particularly as the case had reached the defence stage, and urged the court to revoke the bail and issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.
Justice Umar explained that following the relocation of the court to another floor, there were administrative challenges, including the inability to immediately access the court’s official clerical stamp.
The judge, while explaining the reason for the court to sit, said, “Only the registrar was available at the time, and due to the inability to assemble the necessary court staff, all pending matters, including the defendant’s case, were adjourned to June 16, 2026.
“However, the defendant was absent from court on the adjourned date of June 16, 2026, and instead sent a letter dated June 15, 2026, requesting an adjournment.
“The defendant applied for the matter, which was listed for ruling, to be fixed for another date, suggesting dates including July 2, 3, 14, 15, or 17, 2026, or September 8, 9, 10, or any other date the court considered convenient.”
The prosecution counsel objected to the application, contending that no valid grounds existed for granting the adjournment.
The prosecution further argued that the defendant had not demonstrated seriousness towards the proceedings, especially as the case had reached the defence stage.
The prosecution urged the court to revoke the defendant’s bail and issue a warrant for his arrest.
In its ruling, the judge agreed with the submissions of the prosecution counsel, stating that the defendant’s failure to appear amounted to a clear disobedience of the court’s order.
According to the judge, “The court relied on Section 169 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which empowers the court to take appropriate action where a defendant admitted to bail fails to appear.”
“The court held that the circumstances justified the revocation of bail and the issuance of a warrant to compel the defendant’s appearance,” the judge said.
“Therefore, the bail of the defendant is hereby revoked, and a bench warrant is hereby issued against the defendant to compel his appearance before the court.”
The matter was adjourned to June 27, 2026, for the ruling on the application for recusal.
(SaharaReporters)
