×
  • News - North Central - FCT
  • Updated: December 05, 2023

Absence of presiding judge stalls Sowore’s prosecution over alleged treasonable felony

 Absence of presiding judge stalls Sowore’s prosecution ov

The Federal Government's treason prosecution against Omoyele Sowere, Publisher of SaharaReporters and former Presidential candidate, Tuesday was stalled over the absence of the presiding judge Tuesday before the Abuja Federal High.

Also, a new date was fixed for hearing on February 14, 2024

 

Allnews.ng recalls that the federal government has charged Sowore with treasonable felony.

The complaint was brought against him after he called for a #RevolutionNow protest on August 5, 2019. 

However, Sowore appeared in court on Tuesday (today), but the proceedings were halted because the judge was away on a national assignment.

Marshal Abubakar, Sowore's lawyer, told journalists that the judge in charge of his client's case had been assigned to a separate court in another jurisdiction. He stated that Sowore would have to appear in court on February 14, 2024.

On the most recent adjourned date, November 15, Justice Nwite threatened to dismiss the four-year-long case if the government failed to comply with a court order to serve the charge on the second defendant.

Mariam Okorie, the prosecuting counsel, said she did not know if the second defendant, Olawale Bakare, had been served with the notice.

Sowore's attorney, Abubakar, claimed that the prosecution team was attempting to frustrate his client by failing to serve him with the second defendant's hearing notice.

He went on to say that he had written to the Attorney General of the Federation and the Minister of Justice, requesting that the charge be dismissed so that Sowore could enter a plea and stand trial.

The prosecutor also stated that because they had previously written to the Minister, the next step would be to await his response.

At the time, Justice Nwite stated that he was inclined to allow the adjournment motion if the prosecution team followed the court's direction to serve the other defendant before the next adjournment date.

The judge had previously warned that if the court's order to serve the second defendant was not followed, the case would be dismissed. 

Related Topics

Join our Telegram platform to get news update Join Now

0 Comment(s)

See this post in...

Notice

We have selected third parties to use cookies for technical purposes as specified in the Cookie Policy. Use the “Accept All” button to consent or “Customize” button to set your cookie tracking settings