Publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, on Friday informed the Federal High Court in Abuja of his decision to represent himself in an ongoing cyberbullying case pending the appointment of a new legal team.

Sowore made the declaration before Justice Mohammed Umar shortly after the matter was called for the commencement of his defence.

The court had, on Thursday, ordered that the trial proceed on a day-to-day basis after declining an oral application by Sowore’s counsel, Marshall Abubakar, seeking a lengthy adjournment.

The Department of State Services (DSS) is prosecuting Sowore over allegations that he made false claims against President Bola Tinubu by describing him as “a criminal” in posts published on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts.

At Friday’s proceedings, DSS counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), was present in court, while Abubakar was absent.

Responding to the court’s inquiry about his lawyer’s whereabouts, Sowore said members of his legal team had indicated they would no longer appear before the court, alleging they had been subjected to humiliation during the proceedings.

According to him, he would exercise his constitutional right to represent himself until a new legal team is constituted.

Sowore also informed the court that he had filed two applications, including a motion seeking the recusal of Justice Umar from the case. He said the motion, filed on June 4, had already been served on the prosecution.

With no objection from the prosecution, Sowore moved the application, urging the judge to withdraw from the matter on grounds of alleged bias and humiliation. He relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

In response, Kehinde challenged the competence of the application, arguing that the copy served on the prosecution did not bear the name or signature of counsel who prepared it.

Justice Umar, however, noted that the court’s copy of the application was signed by Marshall Abubakar and cautioned against what he described as unnecessary technical objections.

The DSS counsel further urged the court to dismiss the application, describing it as an abuse of court process intended to frustrate proceedings. He argued that there was already a subsisting order directing the defence to commence immediately and warned that failure to proceed could result in the defence being foreclosed.

Kehinde also referenced a letter from the Chief Judge, dated May 22, which directed that the matter should continue, noting that all parties had been copied.

After listening to both sides, Justice Umar said he would need time to review the application and initially indicated that a ruling could be delivered on Monday.

Sowore, however, appealed for additional time to enable him engage new counsel, citing the forthcoming Democracy Day celebrations and the need to adequately prepare his defence.

While reminding the defendant of the existing order for day-to-day proceedings, the judge granted a brief adjournment.

The matter was subsequently adjourned until June 15, 2026, for ruling on the recusal application and for the commencement of the defence.