By Nchetachi Chukwuajah
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 30, 2026, for ruling on an application by political activist and publisher, Omoyele Sowore, seeking to set aside the court’s order revoking his bail, the setting aside of a bench warrant against him, and the restoration of the status quo on an earlier bail granted him.
Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the matter on Wednesday, June 24, after parties adopted their processes in the application.
The bail restoration application followed the court’s revocation of Sowore’s bail and issuance of a bench warrant for his arrest on June 16 after he failed to appear in court for his trial on alleged cybercrime and criminal defamation charges.
The charges were brought against Sowore by the Department of State Services (DSS) over alleged criminal defamation arising from claims that he referred to President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in posts made on his official X and Facebook accounts on August 25, 2025.
Sowore pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The court had, on Monday, ordered the remand of the African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the determination of his application seeking a stay of execution of the earlier order revoking his bail.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Sowore’s counsel, R.O. Adakole, alongside C.S. Etonyeaku, holding the brief of Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), informed the court that the defendant had filed a motion on notice dated June 17 and filed on June 19, 2026.
The application, brought pursuant to Sections 35(4), 36(1), and 6(6)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Sections 169 and 352 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, sought 12 reliefs.
Among the reliefs sought in the application were an order setting aside the court’s June 16 order revoking the Sowore’s bail, an order vacating the bench warrant issued against him, and an order restoring the status quo and the earlier bail conditions.
The defence said it relied on a 34-paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Emmanuel Larry and a written address filed in support of the application.
Counsel further informed the court that a 36-paragraph affidavit, deposed to by one Sodiq Temitope, was filed on June 24, alongside a reply on points of law dated June 23.
The defence, while adopting the processes, urged the court to “grant the application as prayed in the interest of justice. We also urge the court to discountenance the affidavit of the complainant.”
Responding, prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), said the Federal Government had filed a 25-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by one Moses Madara and a written address in opposition to the application.
He said the prosecution was relying on all the paragraphs of the affidavit, particularly paragraphs 10 to 23.
“We shall be relying on the aforementioned processes, urging your Lordship to refuse the application, as the applicant has not placed truthful facts before this honourable court that are capable of swaying the mind of the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant,” Kehinde said.
After hearing the parties, Justice Umar adjourned the matter until June 30, 2026, for ruling.
Following the adjournment, the defence orally applied for Sowore to be released to his legal team pending the ruling, undertaking to produce him in court on June 30.
The prosecution opposed the request, describing it as “a little bit absurd” and arguing that such an application ought to be made formally to enable the prosecution to respond.
In reply, the defence argued that releasing the defendant would not interfere with the court’s ruling and that the application was within the court’s discretion.
Counsel also informed the court that he had received information that Sowore was in poor health and urged the court to grant the request.
The prosecution, however, reminded the court of “the optics of the matter” but left the decision to the court’s discretion.
Justice Umar pointed out that granting the request would defeat the purpose of adjourning the case to prepare his ruling, noting that he was yet to review the processes filed by both parties.
The judge subsequently denied the application and ordered that the defendant be returned to custody pending the ruling on June 30.
