A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has rejected an attempt by the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, to compel the lead counsel for the Department of State Services (DSS), Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, to testify in his ongoing alleged cyberbullying trial.
The ruling, delivered on Monday by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar, marked another setback for Sowore in the proceedings, as the court set aside the subpoena earlier issued against the senior lawyer.
Justice Umar held that legal practitioners owe their clients a duty of confidentiality and cannot ordinarily be compelled to disclose communications connected with their professional engagement.
The judge explained that a lawyer could only be required to testify in limited circumstances, particularly where the evidence concerns an uncontested matter or does not prejudice the interests of the client.
Following the ruling, defence counsel, Ruben Adakole, informed the court of the defence’s intention to subpoena an All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain, Joe Igbokwe, and the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, as witnesses.
Justice Umar granted the request and directed that subpoenas be issued to the two proposed witnesses to appear before the court.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until November 11, 2026, for the appearance of the subpoenaed defence witnesses.
Sowore, through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide Fusika, SAN, had earlier sought to compel Kehinde to appear in court and give evidence in the case in which he is accused of cyberbullying President Bola Tinubu.
However, in a motion challenging the subpoena, the DSS lawyer argued that the evidence Sowore intended to obtain from him was irrelevant to the charge.
He also disputed the defendant’s claim concerning a possible adjournment of the trial until 2027, insisting that no such application was pending before the court.
Cyril-Ita argued that allowing the subpoena to stand would effectively deprive the Federal Republic of Nigeria of counsel of its choice in prosecuting the case, maintaining that a lawyer could not act as both counsel and witness in the same proceedings.
He further argued that evidence relating to whether the complainant would seek an adjournment, as contained in the publication Sowore intended to tender, was caught by Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act.
He consequently urged the court to set aside the subpoena and direct Sowore to proceed with his defence.
Adakole, who represented the defendant, had urged the court to uphold the subpoena, arguing that Kehinde should be compelled to testify as requested by Sowore.
