Sowore’s Lawyer Says Trial Will Test Nigerians’ Right To Criticise Government

Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika on Wednesday explained that his decision to defend activist and politician Omoyele Sowore is motivated by the need to safeguard Nigerians’ constitutional right to criticise their government.

Olumide-Fusika also denied claims by the prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), that he is out to delay and derail the ongoing trial of his client over alleged criminal defamation, cyberstalking and incitement.

The Department of State Services (DSS) had accused Sowore of making false claims against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” in a post he made on his “X” and Facebook accounts.

The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

While speaking with LEADERSHIP in Lagos, Olumide-Fusika described the ongoing criminal trial of the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) as having far-reaching implications for freedom of expression.

The senior lawyers maintained that the matter surpasses Sowore as an individual and raises fundamental questions about how freely citizens can express dissent in a democratic society without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.

“This case highlights the public interest in Nigerians’ right to criticise their government without fear of prosecution or imprisonment”, Olumide-Fusika said, adding, “I did not take the case because of the individual involved but because of the constitutional issues it raises.”

Olumide-Fusika insisted that democracy flourishes on free speech, stressing that governments should be more tolerant of criticism than military regimes.

“In a democracy, people should be able to speak freely without fear. Speech by itself does not harm anyone. Suppressing speech only creates fear and pushes people to express themselves underground,” he said.

Olumide-Fusika further stated that while he was not commenting on the case’s merits, the outcome could influence the future of constitutional rights in Nigeria.

“If the court decides to place limits on that right, then Nigerians will learn from that decision. But this is about more than Mr Sowore. It concerns the fundamental rights of every Nigerian,” he added.

Responding to questions about his defence strategy, the senior advocate dismissed suggestions that the defence aimed to delay proceedings.

He said his professional record had always been built on transparency and courtroom victories rather than unnecessary adjournments.

“A lawyer’s success is measured by wins in court, not by prolonging cases. I do not engage in delay tactics. If a case lacks merit, I tell my clients so,” he said, adding that his focus would be on dismantling the prosecution’s case through evidence and legal arguments.

Olumide-Fusika disclosed that he accepted Sowore’s brief on 22 June and had until 7 July to file the defence.

He noted that although the deadline coincided with the start of the court’s annual vacation, the defence had complied with its obligations.