Drama as Judge Angrily Asks Sowore’s Lawyer to Kneel in Court, Issues Imprisonment Threat

Proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday were briefly disrupted after a heated exchange between the presiding judge, Mohammed Umar, and defence counsel Marshall Abubakar, representing Omoyele Sowore.

The judge warned the lawyer over his conduct and ordered him to step out of the bar and kneel, following repeated interruptions and raised voice during submissions. He also threatened committal for contempt before other lawyers intervened, urging restraint.

The incident occurred shortly after the prosecution closed its case in the ongoing trial involving Mr Sowore. The case, brought by the State Security Service, centres on allegations that the defendant described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” in social media posts. Mr Sowore has denied the charges.

Tension escalated when the court turned to scheduling the next phase of proceedings. Defence counsel indicated plans to file a no-case submission and requested an adjournment to July. The prosecution, led by Akinlolu Kehinde, opposed the request, arguing it was intended to delay the trial and called for accelerated hearings.

Justice Umar, while declining daily sittings, fixed 13 April for the adoption of final written addresses on the no-case submission.

The exchange intensified when both Mr Sowore and his lawyer attempted to address the court simultaneously regarding the scheduled date. Despite warnings to moderate his tone, Mr Abubakar continued speaking loudly, prompting the judge’s directive and warning.

Order was restored after intervention by other counsel, including the prosecution, who appealed for leniency. The judge subsequently adjourned the matter to 13 April.

Earlier in the session, the prosecution raised concerns that Mr Sowore had a recording device while in the dock, contrary to prior court orders. The defendant denied the claim, stating he only had personal items, which were later handed over to court officials.

The day’s proceedings also featured cross-examination of the prosecution’s sole witness, an operative of the State Security Service, as the defence challenged elements of the case before the court.