Sowore's attorney claims prosecutor is trying the case in the public eye.

n n

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, has dismissed allegations that he is deliberately delaying the criminal trial of activist and politician Omoyele Sowore, insisting that every adjournment in the matter was caused by circumstances beyond the defence team’s control.

n

Speaking in a press briefing in Lagos on Wednesday, Olumide-Fusika accused the prosecution of attempting to create the impression that the defence was frustrating the proceedings through what he described as “trying the case in the media”.

n

The senior lawyer, who represents Sowore in the case alleging cyberstalking, criminal defamation and incitement, insisted that he did not employ delay tactics and accepted only cases in which he believed there was a viable defence.

n

“Those who know me know that I don’t engage in frivolities. If there is no merit in a case, you won’t see me in court,” Olumide-Fusika asserted.

n

He rejected claims that the defence was deploying unnecessary courtroom tactics, stressing that his primary duty was to secure justice for his client through evidence and legal arguments.

n

“I don’t think that we do a lot of unnecessary drama,” he added.

n

The senior advocate cited an instance in which the Attorney-General appeared in court to oppose a subpoena but later reached a compromise with the defence after discussions.

n

According to him, he has made it clear that he is interested only in obtaining evidence relevant to his client’s defence and not in embarrassing anyone.

n

“Lawyers are supposed to help the court towards the goal of justice, not put roadblocks in the way,” he stated.

n

Olumide-Fusika argued that prosecutors had a duty not only to the state but also to defendants, including ensuring that accused persons are given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence.

n

“The prosecutor has a duty to the defendant to ensure that he is given all the time and facilities to mount a good defence. It is not a cat-and-mouse game,” he emphasised.

n

He maintained that allegations that the defence was attempting to stall the trial were unfounded, noting that the timeline of the proceedings did not support such claims.

n

According to him, the original charge against Sowore was filed in September 2025 and later amended, before Sowore was served in December 2025, and the prosecution closed its case in March 2026 after calling a witness.

n

He added that the court dismissed a no-case submission in May and subsequently directed the defendant to open his defence, while he formally entered the matter on June 22, 2026.

n

“So where is the delay they are talking about?” Olumide-Fusika asked, questioning why Sowore’s case was being treated differently from other criminal matters before the courts.

n

The senior advocate said one of the adjournments resulted from the defence’s inability to obtain a certified true copy of a document that was crucial to the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, despite applying for it weeks earlier.

n

He stated that the defence had repeatedly followed up on the application and was initially informed that the trial judge had approved the request, only to discover on the day of the hearing that the document had yet to be certified.

n

“We couldn’t go on without the document because it was like the foundation of the questions we intended to ask the witness,” he said.

n

Olumide-Fusika explained that the defence had applied for the document immediately after the court directed that only a certified copy could be used during the proceedings and had continued to pursue it until the hearing date.

n

He maintained that the situation was not caused by negligence on the part of either the court or the defence team but by administrative challenges within the court system.

n

“Sometimes things happen in court that make it impossible to proceed, and it is nobody’s fault,” he said.

n

The senior advocate also recounted another instance in which technical difficulties prevented the defence from presenting video evidence after court officials failed to make the necessary arrangements despite prior notice from the defence team.

n

He said the defence subsequently agreed to continue with other aspects of the case to ensure that the day was not entirely wasted.

n

Olumide-Fusika further rejected suggestions that he deliberately absented himself from court proceedings, explaining that he had informed both the court and the prosecution in advance that he would be unavailable because he was attending his daughter’s graduation ceremony abroad.

n

According to him, despite an understanding that no hearing date would be fixed during his absence, he later discovered that the case had been adjourned to a date he had specifically indicated he would be unavailable.

n

“I was surprised to hear allegations that we were dodging the trial. Nobody was trying to play games with the court,” he said.

n

The senior advocate argued that if the defence genuinely intended to stall the proceedings, it could simply have objected to the hearing taking place during the court’s annual vacation rather than resort to what he described as unnecessary “drama.”

n

He insisted that his focus remained on preparing his client’s defence and presenting his case before the court.

n

“My responsibility is to prepare my case. If circumstances beyond my control prevent the matter from proceeding, how can I be blamed for that?” he asked.

n

Following the proceedings of Monday, the court adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of trial.

n n