Courtroom Drama as Judge Clashes with Sowore, Orders Lawyer to Kneel in Heated Trial
By Passman Akpos
Tension erupted at the Federal High Court on Monday as proceedings in the trial of activist Omoyele Sowore took a dramatic turn, with the presiding judge, Mohammed Umar, reportedly losing his temper during a heated exchange.
Sowore is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services over allegations linked to his description of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a criminal.
The courtroom tension began after Sowore’s legal team requested a longer adjournment, following the prosecution’s claim that it had closed its case. The request appeared to irritate Justice Umar, setting the stage for a confrontation that would quickly escalate.
In the midst of proceedings, Sowore told the court he would continue touring across Nigeria to mobilise against President Tinubu ahead of the 2027 general elections. His remarks were swiftly interrupted by lead prosecutor Adeolu Kehinde.
The situation intensified when Sowore’s lead counsel, Marshal Abubakar, rose in an emotional defence of his client. Abubakar argued that Nigeria’s future depended on progressive ideals represented by Sowore, alleging that the Federal Government was determined to imprison him to silence his political ambitions ahead of the elections.
Despite repeated warnings from the bench to stop further arguments, Abubakar persisted—prompting Justice Umar to issue a controversial directive ordering the lawyer to step forward and kneel in what he described as punishment for contempt of court.
In a bold and unprecedented response, Abubakar refused, insisting that kneeling before a judge is not recognised under Nigerian law and could not be imposed as a lawful sanction. His resistance sparked visible tension in the courtroom, with several lawyers rising in protest and urging the judge to de-escalate the situation.
Amid the growing unrest, Justice Umar adjourned the case to April 13, 2026. However, the decision was met with strong objections from Sowore’s legal team, who argued that the date was inconvenient and further prolonged the matter.
The dramatic exchange has since raised fresh concerns about courtroom conduct, judicial authority, and the broader implications of the case on political freedoms and the rule of law in Nigeria.
