Sowore Remains in Custody as Court Reserves June 30 to Decide Bail Fight

By: Oluwaseun M. Lawal

The courtroom was quiet for a moment on Wednesday morning. Lawyers shuffled documents. Court officials moved in and out. At the centre of it all sat activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore, waiting to hear what would happen next in a legal battle that has continued to draw public attention.

By the end of the proceedings, there was no immediate victory for either side.

Instead, Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja fixed June 30, 2026, to deliver a ruling on Sowore’s application seeking the restoration of his bail and the cancellation of a bench warrant earlier issued against him.

For Sowore, it means more waiting. More uncertainty.

The activist is currently being prosecuted by the Department of State Services over allegations linked to cybercrime and criminal defamation. The case stems from social media posts published on his X account and Facebook page in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”

Sowore has consistently denied wrongdoing and entered a plea of not guilty when the charges were read before the court.

The latest twist in the case began earlier this month.

On June 16, the court revoked Sowore’s bail after he failed to appear for a scheduled hearing. The absence prompted Justice Umar to issue a bench warrant authorising his arrest. Days later, the former presidential candidate found himself behind bars at the Kuje Correctional Centre while his lawyers moved swiftly to challenge the decision.

Wednesday’s hearing was therefore not about the main trial itself. It was about whether the court should reverse its earlier orders.

Representing the defendant, lawyer R.O. Adakole, alongside C.S. Etonyeaku who held the brief of senior advocate Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, informed the court that a motion seeking multiple reliefs had already been filed.

The defence argued that the court should set aside the order revoking Sowore’s bail, vacate the bench warrant issued against him and restore the conditions that existed before the June 16 ruling.

To support the request, the defence relied on affidavits and written submissions filed before the court. Lawyers insisted they had presented sufficient reasons why the court should exercise its discretion in favour of their client.

They urged the judge to look carefully at the circumstances surrounding the case.

And to do justice.

According to the defence team, the application was rooted in constitutional provisions guaranteeing personal liberty and fair hearing. They also challenged aspects of the prosecution’s response, asking the court to discountenance certain claims made against the defendant.

But the Federal Government was having none of it.

Lead prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), strongly opposed the application. He told the court that the prosecution had filed its own counter-affidavit and accompanying legal arguments challenging the request.

According to him, the defendant had failed to place truthful and convincing facts before the court.

The prosecution maintained that the application lacked the merit necessary to persuade the court to reverse its earlier decision.

It was a direct clash of positions.

One side asking for freedom pending trial.

The other insisting the court should stand by its previous ruling.

After listening to both camps and reviewing the arguments presented, Justice Umar announced that he would reserve his decision until June 30.

That, however, was not the end of the drama.

Shortly after the adjournment, the defence made an oral application. A simple request, at least from their perspective.

They asked the court to temporarily release Sowore into the custody of his legal team pending the ruling. Counsel assured the judge that the activist would be produced in court whenever required and specifically on the next adjourned date.

The prosecution immediately pushed back.

Describing the request as somewhat unusual, government counsel argued that such an application should be formally filed and properly served to allow an adequate response.

The defence disagreed.

Lawyers argued that granting temporary release would not prejudice the court’s eventual ruling. They further informed the court that information available to them suggested that Sowore’s health condition had deteriorated while in custody.

That revelation appeared to add another layer of urgency to the request.

Still, the prosecution urged caution.

While acknowledging that the final decision rested entirely with the court, government lawyers reminded the judge about what they described as the broader implications and public perception surrounding the matter.

Justice Umar eventually sided with neither argument completely.

Instead, he explained why granting temporary release at that stage would be inappropriate.

The judge noted that he had not yet thoroughly examined all the legal processes filed by both parties. Releasing the defendant before considering the pending application, he said, could undermine the purpose of fixing a date specifically to deliver a ruling.

In simple terms, the court preferred to wait.

And so the request was denied.

With that decision, Sowore was ordered to return to custody pending the court’s ruling next week.

For now, attention shifts to June 30.

That date could determine whether the activist regains his bail and continues the trial from outside prison walls, or remains in detention as the legal proceedings move forward. Until then, the arguments have been made, the documents filed, and the court has the final word.

Everyone waits.