Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, has dismissed claims that the defence team in the criminal trial of activist and politician Omoyele Sowore is deliberately delaying the proceedings, insisting that every adjournment has resulted from factors outside its control.
Speaking during a press briefing in Lagos on Wednesday, the senior lawyer accused the prosecution of attempting to shape public perception by portraying the defence as responsible for slowing down the trial through what he described as “trying the case in the media.”
Olumide-Fusika, who represents Sowore in the case involving allegations of cyberstalking, criminal defamation and incitement, maintained that he does not take cases without merit and has never relied on delay tactics in court.
“Those who know me know that I don’t engage in frivolities. If there is no merit in a case, you won’t see me in court,” Olumide-Fusika asserted.
He also dismissed suggestions that the defence had resorted to unnecessary courtroom theatrics, stressing that his responsibility is to defend his client through evidence and sound legal arguments.
“I don’t think that we do a lot of unnecessary drama,” he added.
Recalling an earlier stage of the trial, the senior advocate said the Attorney-General had once appeared in court to challenge a subpoena but later reached an understanding with the defence after discussions.
According to him, his only interest has always been obtaining materials relevant to his client’s defence and not embarrassing any individual.
“Lawyers are supposed to help the court towards the goal of justice, not put roadblocks in the way,” he stated.
Olumide-Fusika further argued that prosecutors owe a duty not only to the state but also to accused persons by ensuring they have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence.
“The prosecutor has a duty to the defendant to ensure that he is given all the time and facilities to mount a good defence. It is not a cat-and-mouse game,” he emphasised.
He insisted there was no factual basis for allegations that the defence had intentionally stalled the proceedings, pointing to the sequence of events since the case began.
According to him, the initial charge against Sowore was filed in September 2025 before it was later amended. He said Sowore was served with the charge in December 2025, while the prosecution concluded its case in March 2026 after presenting one witness.
He added that the court dismissed the defendant’s no-case submission in May before directing the defence to open its case, noting that he officially appeared in the matter on June 22, 2026.
“So where is the delay they are talking about?” Olumide-Fusika asked, questioning why Sowore’s case was being treated differently from other criminal matters before the courts.
Explaining one of the adjournments, the senior lawyer said the defence was unable to proceed because it had not received a certified true copy of a document needed for the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, despite applying for it weeks in advance.
He said the defence made repeated efforts to obtain the document and was initially informed that the trial judge had approved the request, only to discover on the hearing date that it had not yet been certified.
“We couldn’t go on without the document because it was like the foundation of the questions we intended to ask the witness,” he said.
Olumide-Fusika explained that the application for the document was submitted immediately after the court ruled that only a certified copy would be admissible and that the defence consistently followed up until the matter came up in court.
He maintained that neither the defence nor the court was responsible for the setback, attributing it instead to administrative issues.
“Sometimes things happen in court that make it impossible to proceed, and it is nobody’s fault,” he said.
The SAN also cited another occasion when the defence was unable to tender video evidence because court officials failed to make the required technical arrangements despite receiving prior notice.
He said the defence chose to continue with other aspects of the proceedings so the hearing would not be entirely wasted.
Olumide-Fusika also rejected claims that he intentionally stayed away from court, explaining that he had informed both the court and the prosecution beforehand that he would be abroad for his daughter’s graduation ceremony.
According to him, there had been an understanding that no hearing would be fixed during that period, but he later discovered the matter had been adjourned to a date he had already indicated he would be unavailable.
“I was surprised to hear allegations that we were dodging the trial. Nobody was trying to play games with the court,” he said.
He argued that if the defence truly wanted to frustrate the proceedings, it could simply have opposed the hearing being conducted during the court’s annual vacation instead of engaging in what he described as unnecessary “drama.”
The senior advocate reiterated that his priority remained presenting a proper defence for his client.
“My responsibility is to prepare my case. If circumstances beyond my control prevent the matter from proceeding, how can I be blamed for that?” he asked.
Following Monday’s proceedings, the court adjourned the case until September 20, 2026, for continuation of trial.