Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
In a development that has stirred intense debate across Nigeria’s legal, civic and political communities, a dramatic incident at the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 24, 2026 involving activist and media publisher Omoyele Sowore has raised questions about courtroom decorum, judicial authority, freedom of expression, and the administration of justice. This report draws on verified accounts and contextual background to present a full picture of the events, their legal backdrop, and their wider implications.
On Tuesday, March 24, Mr. Sowore reportedly entered the Federal High Court in Abuja accompanied by several associates carrying camera phones and recording equipment. Rather than participating in a scheduled hearing, he is said to have begun preparing what appeared to be a media address inside the courtroom. Eyewitness accounts indicate that he moved into the inner bar area, sat on a table normally reserved strictly for legal participants, and began speaking into cameras about “national issues.” Court records show that no hearing involving Mr. Sowore was listed on the court’s docket for that day, and he was not represented by legal counsel during the episode.
The unexpected conduct drew immediate and sharp objection from Senior Advocate of Nigeria Musibau Adetunbi, a leading defence counsel present in the courtroom. Mr. Adetunbi is reported to have confronted Mr. Sowore and demanded respect for established legal protocols and courtroom order. The situation escalated into visible tension within the courtroom, disrupting normal proceedings and prompting intervention by court security and officials who asked those present to maintain decorum.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the umbrella professional body for lawyers in Nigeria, swiftly issued a statement condemning the incident. The association stressed that courtrooms in a constitutional democracy are open to the public to foster transparency and confidence, but this openness does not grant licence to convert a courtroom into a venue for press briefings or political theatre. The NBA’s commentary underscored that courtrooms must remain solemn spaces dedicated to the orderly administration of justice, and public access must be exercised responsibly with strict adherence to decorum and respect for judicial authority.
The NBA expressed solidarity with Mr. Adetunbi and all legal practitioners who insisted on maintaining decorum and urged court authorities to ensure that such disruptions do not recur. In its statement, the association emphasised that any conduct that undermines the dignity of the court, intimidates legal practitioners, or disrupts proceedings constitutes a serious affront to the rule of law.
This courtroom incident unfolded against the backdrop of a contentious and prolonged legal battle involving Mr. Sowore and the Nigerian government. Legal files reveal that the Department of State Services (DSS) arraigned Mr. Sowore on cyberbullying and defamation charges in late 2025 at the same Federal High Court in Abuja. The prosecution’s case was based on allegations that Mr. Sowore used social media platforms to publish content critical of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, describing him in terms the government contended were defamatory and capable of causing public fear or inciting disturbance. The charge sheet reportedly contains multiple counts alleging breaches of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 (as amended) and provisions of the Criminal Code Act.
Court observers note that the prosecution’s framing of these charges has been contentious. Critics argue that while defamatory statements are actionable under law, reasonable political critique and expression are protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech. Debates in legal circles suggest that charges of cyberbullying and defamation in this context risk chilling civic discourse and could be perceived as state efforts to target political dissent. Reports indicate that the Government also listed major social media platforms as co‑defendants, drawing criticism that this move could set an expansive precedent for how online platforms are held accountable under Nigerian law.
Before the uproar of March 24, Mr. Sowore’s case had already seen notable procedural moments. He had reportedly pleaded not guilty to the charges when they were called in court earlier in the year, and the matter was adjourned for further hearing as both prosecution and defence prepared arguments. Legal commentators observed that the case’s progress was being watched closely by civil liberties advocates, given Sowore’s prominence as a human rights activist and former presidential candidate.
The legal atmosphere surrounding Sowore’s trial has been further charged by a separate courtroom controversy earlier in March 2026 involving a judge and a defence lawyer. The NBA issued a separate statement faulting an alleged order by the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, directing defence counsel Mr. Marshall Abubakar to kneel in court after a disagreement over case scheduling. The Bar association said this conduct was not recognised as a proper judicial sanction under Nigerian law and emphasised that judges must exercise disciplinary powers within clearly defined legal parameters that safeguard fairness and dignity.
Turning to the broader historical context of Sowore’s engagements with Nigerian authorities, archival information documents a long record of confrontation and legal tussles dating back to 2019. At that time, Mr. Sowore was arrested by the DSS on charges of conspiracy to commit treasonable felony after calling for nationwide protests under the banner of his #RevolutionNow movement. That arrest and subsequent detention drew widespread criticism from local and international rights organisations and highlighted tensions between state security agencies and advocates of political reform. He was later released on bail after legal battles, though not without further controversy, including instances where security operatives appeared to resist or delay court orders.
Most recently, separate from his federal prosecution, another set of charges tied to alleged cyberbullying of a former Inspector‑General of Police were struck out by the Federal High Court in mid‑March due to lack of diligent prosecution. The court found that the law enforcement agency prosecuting the matter had failed to pursue the case actively, constituting an abuse of process, and accordingly dismissed those counts.
Reactions across Nigeria’s legal and civic communities to the March 24 courtroom incident have been diverse but pointed. Many senior lawyers have reiterated that while judges have authority to maintain order, that authority is constrained by law and should not be exercised in ways that demean practitioners or create the appearance of arbitrariness. Civil society and media freedom organisations continue to raise concerns about government use of cybercrime and defamation statutes in ways they argue could suppress free speech and political critique. Other voices emphasise the necessity of upholding courtroom decorum and the independence of the judiciary from disruptive actions that could undermine its credibility.
As the legal proceedings involving Mr. Sowore move forward, the episode of March 24 stands as a focal point in ongoing national conversations about the balance between constitutional rights and legal order, the role of courtrooms in democratic society, and the responsibilities of citizens and litigants within the judicial process.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments