Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court of Abuja, has warned that he may revoke the bail granted to politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore, if he fails to appear at the next hearing in his ongoing trial over alleged cyberstalking.
The judge issued the warning on Thursday after the defendant and his legal team failed to appear in court for the scheduled proceedings.
Justice Umar said he would not hesitate to revoke Sowore’s bail and issue a bench warrant for his arrest if he fails to attend the next adjourned sitting.
“If the defendant fails to attend the next adjourned date, I will not hesitate to grant the prosecution’s request to revoke his bail and issue a warrant for his arrest,” the judge warned.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services> over alleged cybercrime offences ulinked to a social media post in which he described President Bola Tinubu as “a criminal” on his X and Facebook accounts.
At Thursday’s hearing, Sowore was absent, and none of his lawyers, reportedly about 30 in number, were present in court.
Counsel to the prosecution, Akinlolu Kehinde, told the court that the defence was expected to conclude its cross-examination of the first prosecution witness.
Kehinde argued that there was no justification for the absence of the defendant and his legal team, stating that both parties had been duly served hearing notices.
“I confirmed from the court’s registry that a hearing notice was served on the defendant through his team of lawyers, just as the prosecution was also served,” Kehinde told the court.
He added that the defendant, who was expected to be present at every sitting of the court, had neither appeared nor provided any explanation for his absence.
Citing Sections 352(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the prosecuting counsel urged the court to revoke Sowore’s bail and issue a bench warrant for his immediate arrest to ensure his presence in court.
However, in his ruling, Justice Umar acknowledged that Sowore had been properly served with the hearing notice but noted that the defendant had consistently attended court proceedings since the trial began late last year.
The judge also observed that previous adjournments in the case had occurred at the instance of both the prosecution and the defence.
On that basis, he said the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt since it was the first time he had failed to appear for trial.
“The defendant has always attended court since the commencement of the case,” Justice Umar said, noting that it would be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until March 16 for continuation of trial and ordered that another hearing notice be issued to Sowore.
