Connect with us

Sowore’s Counsel Admits Unfamiliarity With Evidence Act As Court Reserves Ruling On Subpoena

News

Sowore’s Counsel Admits Unfamiliarity With Evidence Act As Court Reserves Ruling On Subpoena

Sowore’s lawyer admits unfamiliarity with an Evidence Act provision as the court prepares to rule on a subpoena objection.

A member of the legal team of online publisher and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, Treasure Adefisoye, on Monday admitted before a Federal High Court in Abuja that she was unaware of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act.

Adefisoye made the admission during cross-examination by the Department of State Services (DSS) lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, after the defence sought to tender printouts of online media reports claiming that the agency was considering suspending Sowore’s cyber-bullying trial until after the January 16, 2027 presidential election.

Kehinde, who objected to the admissibility of the documents, asked Adefisoye whether she was familiar with Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act. She replied in the negative.

When asked to read the provision, the defence lawyer stated: “Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.”

Adefisoye is a member of Sowore’s defence team led by Olumide Fusika, SAN. The defence had sought the court’s permission to tender the printed copies of the media reports during the continuation of Sowore’s defence on Monday.

Sowore is standing trial on a charge of alleged cyber-bullying instituted by the DSS over an August 2025 social media post in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal”. He recently opened his defence in the case.

Meanwhile, the Federal High Court has adjourned until Tuesday to rule on the DSS’s objection to a subpoena issued by the defence seeking to compel the agency’s lead prosecuting counsel to testify as a defence witness.

The prosecution argued that the subpoena was issued in bad faith, was diversionary and was contrary to the law and established judicial practice.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Muhammad Umar adjourned the matter until Tuesday for a ruling on the objection.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in News

Trending

Advertisement

QUOTES

We are not trapped or locked up in these bones. No, no. We are free to change. And love changes us. And if we can love one another, we can break open the sky.
― Walter Mosley, Blue Light

QUOTES

Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment." - Mahatma Gandh

To Top