Two SANs Clash in Court as Sowore's Cyberstalking Trial Stalls Again

Courtroom drama does not always come from the verdict, sometimes it comes from two Senior Advocates losing their composure in front of the judge.

What Happened

At the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, August 3, proceedings in Omoyele Sowore's ongoing cyberstalking and criminal defamation trial broke down after a heated exchange between his defence counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, and the prosecuting counsel for the Department of State Services (DSS), Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN. Sowore, the activist and African Action Congress presidential candidate, is being prosecuted over social media posts from last year in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a "criminal." He has pleaded not guilty.

The Trigger

Olumide-Fusika sought another adjournment, explaining that a Certified True Copy of court documents he needed to cross-examine a subpoenaed DSS witness, the agency's Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi, had only just been released to him that morning, despite the judge approving the request back on July 27. Kehinde opposed the adjournment, accused the defence of deliberately stalling the trial, and urged the court to foreclose Sowore's defence entirely, arguing the defence had called only one witness since the prosecution closed its own case, with the matter already adjourned roughly four times at the defence's request.

Where It Turned

Visibly frustrated, Olumide-Fusika interrupted Kehinde mid-submission and referred to him as a "persecutor" rather than a prosecutor. Justice Mohammed Umar immediately rebuked him, warning that any repeat of such conduct could see him referred to the appropriate disciplinary body. Both lawyers reportedly apologised to the court shortly after.

The Outcome

The court declined the DSS's request to foreclose the defence, meaning Sowore keeps his opportunity to continue presenting his case. Justice Umar adjourned the matter to September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence.

Why It Matters

Beyond the theatrics, this is a live example of how procedural friction, delayed documents, contested adjournments, foreclosure applications, can shape a high-profile trial just as much as the actual evidence does.