The trial of activist and politician Omoyele Sowore on defamation charges brought by the Department of State Services (DSS) took an unexpected turn on Monday when a heated exchange between counsel for both parties forced the court to adjourn proceedings.

The drama began when Sowore’s lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), applied for an adjournment, explaining that documents approved by the court on July 27 were only released to him on the day of the hearing, leaving him with insufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of a DSS official who was scheduled to testify as a defence witness. Fusika told Justice Muhammed Umar that although the defence had been informed that a witness from the DSS was in court pursuant to a subpoena issued to the agency’s Director-General, Oluwatosin Ajayi, it could not proceed because it had yet to receive the certified court records. He explained that the defence applied for the records on July 22, but was repeatedly told by the registry that the trial judge had not approved the request. The defence later discovered that Justice Umar had in fact approved the application on July 27. “Obviously, the fault is not from Your Lordship’s end. It is a registry issue. The document is prefatory to the continuation of the defence,” Fusika submitted.

Opposing the application, DSS counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) accused the defence of deliberately frustrating the trial and keeping the case unnecessarily on the court’s docket. He reminded the court that at the last adjourned date, both parties had agreed that a nominated DSS officer would appear to testify, and noted that the prosecution had fulfilled its obligation by ensuring the witness was present. Kehinde argued that it was the duty of the defence to diligently pursue its request at the registry rather than waiting until the day of hearing, and urged the court to foreclose the defence’s case, arguing that repeated opportunities had been granted without progress. “We further submit that it is a discretionary case management procedure, and it is not a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing. Section 36(4) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees only the opportunity to be heard, not an unlimited right to delay the matter, as in the instant case,” he argued.

Responding, Fusika accused the prosecution of failing to address the facts placed before the court and instead blaming the defence for circumstances beyond its control. He maintained that the defence had not engaged in dilatory tactics and noted that it could have insisted on the attendance of the subpoenaed DSS Director-General as a witness if its intention was merely to delay proceedings. Relying on Sections 4 to 13 of the Evidence Act, he said the documents sought were material to the defence’s intended line of questioning. Fusika also dismissed the allegation of deliberate delay as “insulting”, considering the expense and effort involved in attending court proceedings.

The proceedings took a dramatic turn when Kehinde rose to make further submissions and Fusika interrupted him, referring to the prosecuting counsel’s behaviour as that of a “persecutor” rather than a prosecutor. The remark prompted an immediate rebuke from Justice Umar, who warned the senior advocate against any further outbursts and cautioned that any repeat of such conduct would lead to his referral to the appropriate disciplinary bodies.

Justice Umar observed that since the prosecution closed its case, the defence had called only one witness and the matter had been adjourned about four times at the defence’s instance. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence, stating that he could not proceed further with the hearing. As tempers flared, the trial judge cautioned both counsel over their conduct, warning that any further disruption could attract disciplinary action.