Alleged treason: Absence of judge stalls Sowore’s case

The alleged treason case filed by the Federal Government against a former Presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, Omoyele Sowore was stalled on Tuesday at the Federal High Court, Abuja due to the absence of the judge.

Sowore is standing trial before Justice Emeka Nwite on allegations of treasonable felony. The government had accused Sowore of treason following his call for a protest tagged #RevolutionNow, on August 5, 2019. Sowore was in court on Tuesday, but the matter could not go on. His counsel, Mr Marshall Abubakar said that the court registrar had informed him that the judge was on national assignment in another jurisdiction of the court.

Abubakar said he had to take a new date, February 14, 2024, for a hearing.

NAN recalls that on the last adjourned date on November 15, Justice Nwite had threatened to strike out the four-year-long case if the government failed to obey an order of the court to serve the charge on the second defendant.

NAF puts up aircraft for sale after 33 years

UK bans healthcare workers from bringing families

The prosecuting counsel, Ms Mariam Okorie, however, said she was not aware if the second defendant, Olawale Bakare, had been served with the notice.

Counsel to Sowore, Abubakar, had told the court that the prosecution team was only trying to frustrate his client by its inability to serve the second defendant the hearing notice for him to appear in court.
Abubakar said that he had written a letter to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice asking that the charge be severed so that Sowore could take his plea and stand trial alone.

The prosecutor also told the court that since they had written to the minister, they would have to wait for the minister’s response to know the next line of action.

Justice Nwite had at the time, said that he was minded to grant an adjournment on the condition that by the next adjourned date, the prosecution team would comply with the order of the court to serve the second defendant.

The judge had warned that if the order of the court to serve the second defendant was not complied with, the matter would be struck out. (NAN)