Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
In a dramatic courtroom exchange in Abuja on Monday, a Federal High Court threatened to jail Marshall Abubakar, senior counsel representing activist and journalist Omoyele Sowore, for contempt of court amid a heated session in the long-running cybercrime prosecution against his client. The warning from the bench came after Abubakar raised his voice during proceedings, signalling deep tensions between Sowore’s defence team and the judiciary in a matter that has drawn national attention.
The case revolves around a two-count charge filed against Sowore by the Department of State Services, Nigeria’s domestic intelligence agency, alleging offences under the country’s Cybercrimes Act over social media posts. Prosecutors contend Sowore, who also publishes the news platform Sahara Reporters, posted comments they deem defamatory and capable of inciting disorder, specifically describing President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” after remarks made by the president while on an international trip. Sowore has pleaded not guilty and vigorously denies wrongdoing, framing the prosecution as an attack on free speech.
At Monday’s hearing, the prosecution formally closed its case having presented a single witness, who was subsequently cross-examined by the defence. When the court invited the defence to begin its case, counsel Abubakar indicated the intention to file a no-case submission instead, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case capable of sustaining a conviction. He also proposed adjournment to a later date to prepare for that submission.
The DSS counsel objected to the proposed delay, describing it as a tactic to stall proceedings. The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, noted that while the prosecution had expeditiously concluded its part of the case, the defence’s cross-examination had extended over several days. Ultimately, the judge directed both sides to return on April 13 for the adoption of final written addresses concerning the no-case submission, but the exchange exposed rising frustration.
The contempt threat came after Sowore spoke from the dock about scheduling conflicts involving his political party’s primary elections — the African Action Congress — while his lawyer simultaneously interjected at a raised volume. The judge rebuked Abubakar for breaching decorum and warned that further misconduct could result in incarceration for contempt of court, highlighting the judiciary’s insistence on controlled courtroom conduct amid high-profile legal battles.
Legal observers say contempt powers enable courts to preserve dignity and order in the administration of justice, but critics warn that wielding such authority in politically charged trials risks the perception of intimidation and suppression of robust legal advocacy. The Sowore case, in particular, has long been polarising, pitting debates over national security law against broad constitutional guarantees of free expression and press freedom.
Sowore’s current legal challenges with the Nigerian state are not new. As founder of Sahara Reporters, a news outlet known for exposing corruption and government misconduct, he has repeatedly found himself at odds with authorities over his activism and commentary. His engagements with the justice system date back years, including a highly publicised arrest in 2019 during the #RevolutionNow movement — a series of nationwide protests calling for systemic reforms — which resulted in prolonged detention and multiple court appearances on charges ranging from treasonable felony to cybercrime. International human rights groups condemned those earlier prosecutions as politically motivated.
In the current matter, the amended charge introduced by the DSS in late 2025 focuses on allegations of cyberbullying and posing threats to public order through the use of digital platforms. Critics, including press freedom organisations and civil liberties advocates, argue that provisions of the Cybercrimes Act have been misapplied to target dissent and discourage critical commentary about political office holders. Such concerns are echoed in broader reports documenting how criminal defamation and cybercrime statutes can be used against journalists, activists and ordinary citizens, potentially undermining civic space and constitutional rights.
The case has also featured procedural wrangling over matters such as bail conditions and document admissibility, with Sowore continuing to assert his commitment to facing the charges while challenging their fundamental legal basis. Despite the high stakes, he remains free on bail, subject to conditions imposed earlier in the trial’s timeline.
Supporters of Sowore and civil society advocates have closely monitored developments, arguing that the prosecution’s persistence illustrates ongoing pressure on outspoken critics of government policy. They contend that a fair and transparent judicial process is essential not just for Sowore’s individual rights but for upholding broader democratic norms in Nigeria. Legal commentators note that how the court handles issues of procedure, evidence, and counsel conduct — including the threat of contempt sanctions — will be watched across the legal community as indicative of the judiciary’s balance between order and fairness.
The prosecution’s framing of the case points to statutory interpretations of the Cybercrimes Amendment Act and related laws aimed at maintaining public order in the digital age. Government representatives maintain that no individual, regardless of prominence or political stance, is exempt from accountability when alleged to violate legal provisions. However, this position continues to be contested vigorously by defence lawyers and rights groups, who stress that any application of criminal law must respect free speech protections under the Nigerian constitution.
As proceedings continue toward the adoption of final written addresses later this spring, Sowore’s legal team is expected to press its no-case submission in earnest, challenging the sufficiency and legality of the prosecution’s evidence and charges. Meanwhile, the contempt warning signals that courtroom management and legal strategy will remain focal points in this unfolding chapter of the case. The outcome could have significant implications for the future use of cybercrime laws in politically sensitive contexts and for the broader discourse on free expression in Nigeria.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments