The Department of State Services (DSS), on Tuesday, told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the bid by African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, to turn its lead counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, into his witness, is the politician’s ploy to delay his trial for allegedly cyberbullying President Bola Tinubu.
The DSS told the court that the subpoena Sowore issued on its lead counsel was in bad faith and strange in law and in criminal trial. Under Section 192 of the Evidence Act, stated the lawyer, no legal practitioner is permitted to disclose any communication made to him in the course of his engagement unless with the consent of his client.
The DSS added that Sowore’s subpoena was an abuse of court process calculated to annoy and irritate its lead counsel.
The submission by the DSS came as the trial judge, Justice Mohammed Garba Umar, fixed November 9, to deliver ruling on Sowore’s application.
The judge fixed the date after taking arguments for and against the application by counsel on both sides.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Kenneth Cyril-Ita, who represented the DSS, asked the court to set aside the subpoena issued against Kehinde, SAN, by Sowore seeking turn the DSS lead lawyer into a witness in the trial.
Sowore, through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide Fusika, SAN, had served a subpoena on the DSS lead counsel to appear in court to give evidence in respect of the trial of the defendant for allegedly cyberbullying President Tinubu.
In his motion on notice against the execution of the subpoena, Cyril-Ita told the Court that the evidence sought to be given through the subpoena witness is irrelevant to Sowore’s alleged cyberbullying trial. Contrary to Sowore’s claim, stressed the DSS lawyer, there is no application before the Court to suspend or adjourn the trial till 2027.
“By not setting aside the subpoena, the Court is being invited to deprive the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a counsel of its choice in the prosecution of the matter as counsel cannot be a witness and counsel at the same time in the same matter,” he stated.
“The evidence of whether the Complainant will ask for adjournment or not in the matter as shown in the publication sought to be tendered is a matter allegedly caught by section 83(3) of the Evidence Act,” he continued.
He, therefore, urged Justice Umar to set aside the subpoena and direct Sowore to continue his defence in the charges against him.
In his argument, Ruben Adakole, who represented Sowore, asked the Court to uphold the subpoena against the DSS lead counsel as requested by the defendant to make him his witness.
Thereafter, Justice Umar adjourned to November 9, to deliver his decision on the matter.
