Sowore’s Trial Delayed As AGF, Defence Clash Over DSS Boss’ Subpoena

By Olugbenga Soyele and Olakunle Olasanmi

The trial of activist and former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, was on Monday stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja following a disagreement between the prosecution and defence over a subpoena issued to the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi.

The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, had fixed Tuesday for the continuation of the defence in the criminal case marked FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025.

At the resumed hearing of the matter, Sowore’s counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), informed the court that the defence’s next witness was the DSS Director-General, who had been subpoenaed to testify.

However, the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), opposed the move, informing the court that there was no record showing the subpoena had been served on the witness.

Following the judge’s enquiry, the court’s registrar informed him that the Directorate of Services had received the subpoena at the DSS headquarters, a development then brought to the attention of the prosecution.

Despite this confirmation, the Attorney General challenged the validity of the subpoena, arguing that it should have been personally served on the DSS boss and that it failed to specify the date the witness was required to appear before the court.

The prosecution also claimed that the document the defence sought to establish through the subpoena had already been admitted as evidence and marked as Exhibit D.

According to the Attorney General, insisting on the subpoena after the document had been tendered amounted to an abuse of court process.

He, therefore, urged the court to disregard the subpoena, citing the decision in Ishak v. Shoniyi.

In response, Olumide-Fusika told the court that when the charge was initially filed, the matter was being prosecuted by A.T. Kehinde & Partners.

While recognising the constitutional powers of the Attorney General to take over criminal proceedings, the defence maintained that the takeover should have been properly communicated to defence counsel before any substantive submissions were made.

The senior advocate also requested time to respond to the prosecution’s legal arguments, especially the authorities cited in support of its objection.

In reply, the Attorney General stated he had properly assumed conduct of the prosecution and was constitutionally empowered under Section 174(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to take over criminal proceedings at any stage.

The defence, however, urged the court to dismiss the prosecution’s submissions, relying on what it admitted was only a persuasive decision of a lower court.

After further exchanges, both parties agreed to avoid further delays in the proceedings.

The prosecution and defence agreed to reconvene on 3 August 2026, noting that there was no longer any need for the court to deliver a ruling on the subpoena since the defence had sought the testimony only regarding a document already admitted in evidence.

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until August 3 for the continuation of the defence.