Alleged Cyberbullying: Sowore Fails To Enter Defence

When the case came up on Tuesday, Abubakar told the court that his client had filed letters and applications with the court’s Chief Judge, demanding a reassignment of the case to another judge.

He said the applications, one filed personally by Sowore and the other by him (the lawyer), are accompanied by affidavits and exhibits containing reasons why they are asking that the case be reassigned to another judge.

Responding, Kehinde said he was served on May 19 with the two letters filed by the defence on the same date (May 19).

Kehinde argued that what the defence has done is contrary to what the court ordered them to do on the last date, which was to file a formal application to the court on their request for the judge’s recusal.

The prosecuting lawyer urged the court not to allow the defence to dictate the pace of the proceedings in the case.

He noted that the case has got to the stage where the defendant should enter his defence if he has one, and if he does not have one, he should tell the court so that the prosecution can make the appropriate application.

In his reply, Abubakar argued that the defence had done the appropriate thing and urged the court not to allow itself to be railroaded into taking steps that are alien to the administration of justice.

The defence lawyer urged the court to adjourn further proceedings in the case to await the decision of the court’s CJ on the letters they wrote.

Ruling, Justice Umar ordered the prosecution to file its response to the defence’s letters dated May 19, which are addressed to the Chief Judge and which have also been served on the prosecuting lawyer.

The judge adjourned further hearing till June 4 pending the outcome of the petition written by the defence to the court’s CJ.