Sowore Alleges Judge Revoked His Bail in Tinubu Defamation Case
Human rights activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, has alleged that the judge presiding over the case arising from his description of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a "criminal" has revoked his bail despite his appearance in court.
In a statement shared on social media, Sowore claimed that he was present in court on the previous hearing date, but the judge was not in attendance. According to him, his legal team subsequently requested a new hearing date.
Sowore further stated that the matter scheduled for hearing was his application seeking the judge's recusal from the case. However, he alleged that the judge instead proceeded to revoke his bail, a move he described as an attempt to exert control over the trial proceedings.
"The agenda for today was to consider my application seeking the judge's recusal, but instead, he opted to revoke my bail in a bid to assert forceful control over the trial. I will confront these developments with determination and resilience," Sowore said.
The activist also claimed that the development was prearranged but insisted that it would not deter him from pursuing the case.
As of the time of this report, the court has not publicly responded to Sowore's allegations, and the claims remain his account of the proceedings. Further details are expected to emerge as the legal process continues.
The case has attracted significant public attention, with supporters and critics closely monitoring developments due to its implications for free speech, judicial independence, and political accountability in Nigeria.
Do you believe the judiciary should publicly address allegations of this nature while cases are ongoing, or should all parties allow the legal process to run its course?