THE ALLEGED TREASON CASE AGAINST SOWORE IS POSTPONED.

Babatunji Wusu –

The Abuja Federal High Court on Tuesday postponed the Federal Government’s purported treason prosecution against Omoyele Sowere, the publisher of SaharaReporters and a former presidential contender.

The government has accused Sowore of treasonable felonies.

On August 5, 2019, he called for a protest with the hashtag #RevolutionNow, and that’s when the case was filed against him. However, Sowore was supposed to appear in court on Tuesday (today), but because the judge was out of the country on assignment, the hearings were postponed.

Journalists were informed by Sowore’s attorney, Marshal Abubakar, that the judge overseeing his client’s case had been transferred to a different court in a separate jurisdiction. He said that Sowore will need to show up for a hearing on February 14, 2024.

Recall that Justice Nwite had threatened to dismiss the four-year case on the previous postponed date of November 15 if the government disregarded the court’s order to serve the second defendant with the charge.

The prosecutor, Ms. Mariam Okorie, asserted that she had no knowledge of whether Olawale Bakare, the second defendant, had received the notice.

Sowore’s attorney, Abubakar, said that by neglecting to provide his client with the second defendant’s hearing notice, the prosecution team was attempting to irritate him.

He continued by saying that he had written to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the Federation requesting the dismissal of the charges so that Sowore could enter a plea and go on trial.

The prosecutor added that they would have to wait for the Minister’s response as they had already written to him to find out what to do next.

When the prosecution team complied with the court’s direction to serve the other defendant by the next adjournment date, Justice Nwite had indicated at the time that he was likely to approve the motion for an adjournment.
The judge had issued a warning, stating that the case would be dismissed if the court’s order to serve the second defendant was not followed.