Ahead 2027 polls: Sowore urges Tinubu to enrol in online classes for school certificates

. Court adjourns abuse trial as lawyers clash in court

Chinwe Odita with Agency report

There was tension at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, as counsel to Omoyele Sowore, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), engaged in a heated exchange with prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), whom he described as a “persecutor” during the continuation of Sowore’s criminal trial.

The courtroom drama unfolded after the defence sought another adjournment, blaming the court registry for its inability to obtain a Certified True Copy of documents it said were crucial to continuing its case.

Fusika told Justice Muhammed Umar that although the defence had been “reliably informed” that a witness from the Department of State Services was in court pursuant to a subpoena issued to the agency’s Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi, it could not proceed because it was yet to receive the certified court records.

According to him, the defence applied for the CTC on July 22, 2026, but was repeatedly informed by the registry that the trial judge had not approved the request.

He said the defence later discovered that Justice Umar had in fact approved the application on July 27.

“Obviously, the fault is not from Your Lordship’s end. It is a registry issue. The document is prefatory to the continuation of the defence,” Fusika submitted.

Opposing the application, Kehinde accused the defence of deliberately frustrating the trial and keeping the case unnecessarily on the court’s docket.

He reminded the court that at the last adjourned date, both parties had agreed that a nominated DSS officer would appear to testify for the defence and noted that the prosecution had fulfilled its own obligation.

“That part of the agreement was kept by the prosecution,” he said, adding that the witness was present to testify in relation to Exhibit DWD.

Kehinde argued that it was the duty of the defence, as the applicant, to diligently pursue its request at the registry rather than waiting until the day of hearing.

He urged the court to foreclose the defence’s case, arguing that repeated opportunities had been granted without progress.

“We further submit that it is a discretionary case management procedure, and it is not a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing. Section 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees only the opportunity to be heard, not an unlimited right to delay the matter, as in the instant case,” he argued.

Responding, Fusika said the prosecution had failed to address the facts placed before the court and had instead chosen to blame the defence for circumstances beyond its control.

He maintained that the defence had not engaged in dilatory tactics and noted that it could have insisted on the attendance of the subpoenaed DSS DG as a witness if its intention was merely to delay proceedings.

He further argued that the defence could not determine when the judge approved its application and could only rely on information supplied by the court registry.

Relying on Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act, he said the documents sought were material to the defence’s intended line of questioning.

Fusika also dismissed the allegation that the defence was deliberately delaying the matter, saying such a suggestion was “insulting,” considering the expense and effort involved in attending court proceedings.

Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and that the matter had been adjourned about four times at the defence’s instance.

Fusika then gave the court a detailed chronology of events from June 22, 2026, when he assumed conduct of the case, in a bid to demonstrate that the defence had acted diligently throughout.

Proceedings, however, took a dramatic turn when Kehinde rose to make further submissions, and Fusika interrupted him, referring to the prosecuting counsel’s behaviour as being that of a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor.

The remark prompted an immediate rebuke from Justice Umar, who warned the senior advocate against any further outbursts.

The judge cautioned that any repeat of such conduct would lead to his referral to the “appropriate disciplinary bodies.”

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence, stating that he could not proceed further with the hearing.

At the previous sitting, the defence withdrew its subpoena seeking to compel the Director-General of the DSS to testify after the prosecution argued that the evidence sought through the witness had already been admitted twice during the trial.

Meanwhile, Human rights activist and presidential candidate of AAC, Omoyele Sowore, has advised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to enrol in online primary and secondary school programmes to obtain what he described as the appropriate academic certificates.

Speaking during a broadcast on Sahara TV, Sowore made the remarks while criticizing the President’s educational background, claiming that enrolling in accredited online basic education programmes would enable Tinubu to earn authentic primary and secondary school certificates.

According to Sowore, the President should take advantage of modern online learning opportunities rather than remain at the centre of recurring public controversy over his academic records.

He argued that obtaining the certificates through legitimate educational programmes would help put such controversies to rest and even cited examples of Nigerian leaders who did same like Obasanjo and Adeleke.

The activist’s comments have since generated reactions on social media, with supporters describing the remarks as political satire and criticism, while others viewed them as another episode in the long-running war of words between Sowore and the Tinubu administration.

The Presidency has not issued any official response to Sowore’s latest comments as of the time of filing this report.

Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters and the African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, has remained one of President Tinubu’s most vocal critics, frequently challenging the administration on issues of governance, accountability, and transparency.

President Tinubu’s academic records have been the subject of political and legal debate in recent years, particularly following the 2023 presidential election, although the President has consistently maintained that he met all constitutional requirements to contest the office.

For a better society

_______________________________

Follow us across our platforms:

Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/championnewsonline/
Facebook – https://web.facebook.com/championnewsonline
LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/champion-newspapers-limited/
https://x.com/championnewsng/

You can also like and comment on our YouTube videos.
https://youtu.be/QIBfD1tT80w?si=R4Qf3so2LxYu3GC2