LIFESTYLE Culture

Sowore’s Defence Lawyer Unfamiliar With Evidence Act Section

by admin on | 2026-10-27 12:00:57

Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 2

By Maryam Yahya

A lawyer on the legal team of online publisher and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, told the Federal High Court in Abuja that she was unfamiliar with a provision of the Evidence Act during proceedings in his alleged cyber-bullying trial.

The lawyer, Treasure Adefisoye, made the admission while responding to questions from the lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, over the admissibility of printed copies of online media reports sought to be tendered by the defence.

The reports purportedly indicated that the Department of State Services (DSS) was considering suspending Sowore’s cyber-bullying trial until after the January 16, 2027, presidential election.

The defence had sought the court’s permission to tender the printouts as evidence, but Kehinde objected to their admissibility and questioned Adefisoye on whether she was aware of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act.

In response, Adefisoye said she was not aware of the provision and admitted that she was not very conversant with the Evidence Act.

Kehinde subsequently asked her to read the relevant provision, which addresses the admissibility of documents made during the pendency of proceedings in certain circumstances.

Adefisoye is a member of Sowore’s legal team led by Olumide Fusika, SAN.

Sowore recently opened his defence in the case instituted by the DSS over an August 2025 social media post in which he allegedly described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”

The prosecution is challenging the defence’s attempt to introduce the media reports as evidence in the ongoing trial.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned proceedings until Tuesday to rule on the DSS’s objection to a subpoena issued by the defence seeking to compel Kehinde, the prosecution’s lead counsel, to testify as a defence witness.

The prosecution described the subpoena as being issued in bad faith, diversionary and contrary to the law and established judicial practice.

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