The Department of State Services (DSS) reportedly took human rights activist and African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, into custody on Monday right from the Federal High Court in Abuja.
This action followed a ruling by Justice Mohammed Umar, who directed that Sowore be held at the Kuje Correctional Centre until Wednesday after his previous bail conditions were revoked.
Before the arrest, the court rejected an application from Sowore that requested the judge to step down from the trial. This request stemmed from previous remarks in which Sowore labeled President Bola Tinubu a “criminal.”
According to SaharaReporters, about 10 armed DSS operatives, dressed in black, forcibly dragged Sowore out of the court premises despite protests from persons present.
Sowore continues to face charges filed by the DSS regarding his past public statements—allegations he has consistently denied.
During Monday’s session, Sowore appeared with a new lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Adeyinka Patrick Olumide-Fusika. The attorney apologized to the court for Sowore’s failure to attend the previous hearing on June 16, 2026.
Olumide-Fusika stated that he assumed responsibility for the absence, clarifying that he had directed the activist to travel to Lagos to prepare and receive a formal briefing on the case.
Back on May 26, Sowore submitted a formal request for Justice Mohammed Umar to withdraw from presiding over Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, claiming there was a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”
He further requested that the case be transferred to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for assignment to a different judge.
That application included a 39-paragraph affidavit from Sowore, along with documents labeled as Exhibits Fair Trial 1, 2, 3, and 4, accompanied by a written address.
In his submissions, Sowore argued that justice should not only be executed but must also be transparently seen to be done.
He referenced legal precedents such as R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) and various Supreme Court rulings regarding judicial bias and the right to a fair hearing.
He asserted that the current situation was sufficient to justify a recusal to maintain public faith in the judiciary.
However, in his ruling, Justice Mohammed Umar stated that while the application followed proper procedure, it lacked merit.
The judge acknowledged the necessity for judicial impartiality but determined that the reasons provided by the defendant were insufficient to warrant his withdrawal.
Justice Umar also categorized Sowore’s arguments as an “afterthought,” pointing out that the activist had actively participated in the trial process for a significant period before voicing these concerns.
The judge noted that Sowore had already gone through the trial until the prosecution concluded its case and had even filed a no-case submission, which the court previously rejected.
The court maintained that a no-case submission is an integral part of the defence strategy in a criminal matter, and a defendant who has fully engaged with the proceedings cannot suddenly use those same circumstances to challenge the impartiality of the trial judge.
See video below:
