Federal High Court Revokes Sowore's Bail, Orders Arrest Over Failure to Appear in Court

In a dramatic turn of events, the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar, has revoked the bail of Omoyele Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress. This decision was made due to Sowore's failure to appear in court on June 16, 2026, for a scheduled hearing. Sowore is currently facing trial for allegedly cyberbullying President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, following a case filed by the Department of State Services. The matter had been adjourned to June 15, 2026, for a ruling on an application by Sowore requesting the judge to recuse himself from the case due to allegations of bias. However, the judge was absent on that day, and the court registrar informed all parties to return on June 16, 2026. Sowore, who was present in court on June 15, 2026, sent a letter to the court on the same day, requesting an adjournment and suggesting alternative dates in July or September for the ruling. The prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, opposed the application, arguing that Sowore had shown disregard for the court process and had not provided a valid reason for his absence. Justice Umar, in his ruling, stated that the defendant's failure to appear in court amounted to a clear disobedience of the court's order. The judge relied on Section 169 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which empowers the court to take appropriate action when a defendant on bail fails to appear. As a result, the court revoked Sowore's bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest. The matter has been adjourned to June 27, 2026, for a ruling on Sowore's application for the judge's recusal. According to the judge, 'The court held that the circumstances justified the revocation of bail and the issuance of a warrant to compel the defendant's appearance before the court.' The letter written by Sowore's team read, 'I respectfully apply that the matter be set down for the ruling either on July 2nd, 3rd, 14th 15th, 17th, or September 8th, 9th, 10th or any other date subsequent the Court may deem convenient.' The prosecution counsel had argued that the defendant had not demonstrated seriousness towards the proceedings, especially as the case had reached the defence stage.