The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Wednesday rejected two sets of documents tendered by Omoyele Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, in his ongoing trial over alleged defamatory remarks against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling, declined an oral application by Mr Sowore’s counsel, Marshall Abubakar, seeking an order admitting a set of documents comprising print-outs of publications in evidence.
Mr Sowore is being prosecuted by the State Security Service over allegations that he made false claims about Mr Tinubu, referring to him as “a criminal” in posts on his X and Facebook accounts.
The publications sought to be tendered include media reports on the SSS’ dismissal of 115 officials for misconduct, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission charging five former governors with corruption, the EFCC sacking 27 of its officials over fraud and misconduct, and the EFCC’s arrest of some former staff of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation over an alleged N7.2 billion fraud.
In his ruling, Justice Umar agreed with the submission of counsel to the SSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, that the appropriate stage for the defendant to tender the documents would be during the presentation of his defence.
The judge held that since the first prosecution witness, PW-1, under cross-examination by Mr Abubakar, stated that he had no knowledge of the publications contained in the documents, they could not be tendered through him.
“You cannot tender a document through a witness who said he did not know anything about it. The document is hereby marked as rejected,” Justice Umar said.
In a second ruling, the court also rejected another set of documents comprising print-outs of publications which Mr Abubakar said showed that Mr Tinubu allegedly referred to former President Goodluck Jonathan as “a drunkard and sinking fisherman,” and also described former President Olusegun Obasanjo as “an expired meat”.
The judge marked the documents as rejected for the same reason given for the rejection of the first set.
Justice Umar, however, expressed concern over a report by the prosecuting counsel that a member of the defence team had live-streamed earlier proceedings in the case and urged the court to order an investigation to identify the person responsible.
Although Mr Abubakar denied that any member of the defence team was involved and suggested that it could have been carried out by the Department of State Services or individuals in the presidency, the judge said such an act amounted to contempt of court.
Mr Abubakar urged the court to issue only a caution against a recurrence of the incident rather than grant the prosecution’s request for an investigation.
The judge said it would be easy to identify the person responsible and that he could direct security agencies to investigate the matter, describing it as a serious issue.
Although Justice Umar indicated that he would address the matter at the close of the day’s proceedings, he did not return to it when adjourning the case.
