Justice Mohammed Umar Archives - Phenomenal

Court threatens to revoke Sowore’s bail if he makes inciting comments

Phenomenal — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 14:23:32 +0000

The post Court threatens to revoke Sowore’s bail if he makes inciting comments appeared first on
Phenomenal.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, threatened to revoke a bail granted Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters, if he makes comments considered detrimental to national peace and security.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling on Sowore’s bail application after he was arraigned by the Department of State Services (DSS), restrained him from further making such statements.

Justice Umar held that since there was evidence that Sowore was a presidential candidate in the country before and having also earlier been granted bail by the court, with his international passport still being held by the court, he was entitled to be granted bail on self-recognition.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the DSS, accused Sowore of making a false claim against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as “a criminal” on his X and Facebook accounts.

The security agency, in the five counts, sued Sowore, the 2019 and 2023 presidential candidate of African Action Congress (AAC), as 1st defendant and joined X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp as 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Earlier when the matter was called for Sowore to take his plea, his lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, challenged the competency of the charge.

Abubakar argued that a preliminary objection had been served on the counsel for prosecution, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN.

He, however, informed the court that the preliminary objections was served on the DSS lawyer few minutes before commencement of the proceedings.

He argued that his client cannot take a plea on a charge that was incompetent.

Responding, Kehinde vehemently objected to Abubakar ‘s submission.

The senior lawyer, who argued that the application was not ripe to be taken, said the business of the day was for Sowore’s arraignment.

He said the preliminary objections filed was part of the mischief of the 1st defendant (Sowore)’s lawyer to delay proceedings in the matter.

He reminded the court that so many adjournments had been granted at the instance of the 1st defendant in the past.

Kehinde, who cited Section 396(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, to back his argument, said no application ought to be heard until Sowore’s arraignment.

Lawyers who appeared for X Incorp (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook) Incorp (2nd and 3rd defendants), including Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, did not opposed the application for the matter to to proceed.

In a short ruling, Justice Umar aligned with the argument of the DSS lawyer and ordered that the arraignment should proceed.

Sowore, however, pleaded not guilty to the five counts.

Following the not guilty plea, Kehinde applied for a trial date but Abubakar said a bail application had been filed on Sowore’s behalf.

The lawyer, while arguing the bail motion dated Aug. 18, urged the court to admit Sowore to bail on self-recognizance or most liberal terms.

He said the 1st defendant was willing and ready to stand his trial and that he would not jump bail.

“He is a law-abiding citizen. He is a two-time presidential candidate.

“Just three days ago, the applicant won an election as chairman of a major political party in Nigeria, AAC.

“And that he is ready to prove his innocent before your lordship,” he said.

Abubakar, who urged the court to grant their application, undertook to always ensure that Sowore is in court for his trial.

He said the 1st defendant’s international passport was already with the deputy chief registrar of the court, hence, he cannot jump bail.

Responding, the DSS lawyer said I’m opposition to the bail application, a counter affidavit of 40 paragraphs was filed.

Kehinde, though a bail is at the discretion of the court, he prayed the court to refused Sowore’s bail plea.

He submitted that one fundamental consideration in the exercise of the discretionary power of the court in granting bail is contained in Section 162 of ACJA, 2015.

“That the applicant (Sowore) has a duty to convince my lord that where this application is granted, he will not commit another similar offence,” he said.

The senior lawyer argued that looking at Sowore’s trajectory, the instant bail cannot be granted, the applicant, having flouted a previous order of the court.

“I urge my lord to be weary in exercising this discretion.

“And if your lordship is inclined to exercising the discretion, the conditions should be very stringent,” he prayed.

Ogunwumiju and Christabel Ndokwelu who appeared for X and Facebook did not oppose the application.

Justice Umar, who admitted Sowore to bail on self-recognition, barred him from making statements considered to be a threat to the country’s national unity and peace.

The judge, who warned that his bail would be revoked if the 1st defendant indulged in such act, adjourned the matter until Jan. 19, 2026 for commencement of trial.

Court strikes out lawyer’s suit against Gov. Uzodinma over appointment of CJ

Phenomenal — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 13:20:56 +0000

The post Court strikes out lawyer’s suit against Gov. Uzodinma over appointment of CJ appeared first on
Phenomenal.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, struck out a suit filed by a lawyer, Victor Nwadike, against Gov. Hope Uzodinma of Imo over alleged failure to appoint the most senior judge as the state’s chief judge (CJ).

Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling, declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Justice Umar held that Nwadike failed woefully to show in his affidavit the reason he joined the National Judicial Council (NJC) as respondent in his suit.

“Joining the 3rd respondent (NJC) herein is not enough, the applicant must show in his affidavit or reliefs claim against the 3rd respondent else this court will decline jurisdiction.

“The entire gamut of the affidavit in support as well as the reliefs claim by the applicant, none of them hanged on the 3rd respondent.

“On the whole this court decline the jurisdiction to entertain this suit and is hereby struck out,” the judge said, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back the ruling.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Nwadike had, in a motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1303/2025, sued Imo governor, Attorney-General of Imo and NJC as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

The motion was dated and filed on July 2.

The lawyer sought “an order granting leave to the applicant to apply for an ORDER OF MANDAMUS compelling the Governor of Imo State to appoint the most senior Judge of the High Court of Imo State to perform the functions of the Chief Judge of Imo State forthwith, without delaying a day more.”

He said this was in accordance with Section 271 (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

In the affidavit in support of the motion, Nwadike averred that on April 30, NJC released a statement, directing Uzodinma “to appoint the most senior judicial officer in the State High Court’s hierarchy as the acting Chief Judge of the State in conformity with Section 271 (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”

He said on June 26, NJC reiterated its earlier directive to the governor to swear in the most senior judge as acting CJ.

According to him, till date, the 1st defendant has failed to appoint the most senior judge of the High Court of Imo State to perform the functions of the Chief Judge of Imo State.

“I have filed this action to compel the 1st defendant to appoint the most senior judge of the High Court of Imo State to perform the functions of the Chief Judge of Imo State, in adherence to Section 271 (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

He said the reliefs sought in the suit are in the interest of justice and the sanctity of the constitution.

NAN reports that Justice Umar had, on July 16, directed Nwadike to address the court on why the court should grant his reliefs considering jurisdictional ground.

The lawyer, who gave his address on jurisdiction on Sept. 22, begged the court to make an order transferring the case to appropriate court in Imo if the court found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Delivering the ruling on Tuesday, the judge held that the NJC, “having discharged its responsibility has no any business in this suit.”

According to him, there is no any identifiable claim against it by the applicant.

“It a trite law that it is the claim of the applicant that determine the jurisdiction of this honourable court.

“A careful perusal of the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte before this court, specifically Paragraphs 9 and 10.

“It is clear that the 3rd respondent has already discharged its own mandate.

“The 3rd respondent’s name was included just to confer jurisdiction on this court,” the judge said

Court grants N10m bail each to two CBEX promoters, as EFCC arraigns another

Phenomenal — Mon, 21 Jul 2025 14:16:42 +0000

The post Court grants N10m bail each to two CBEX promoters, as EFCC arraigns another appeared first on
Phenomenal.

Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to two promoters of Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX), Awerosuo Otorudo and Chukwuebuka Ehirim, in the sum of N10 million each with two sureties in like sum.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in his ruling, ordered that the sureties must possess properties valued at the bail amount within the court’s jurisdiction, and their residences must be verified by the court registrar.

Meanwhile, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arraigned another CBEX promoter over alleged fraudulent activities linked to the platform.

The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until Oct. 13 for commencement of trial.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Umar had, on July 7, adjourned for ruling on their bail application, after it was argued by the defendants’ lawyer, Justice Otorudo, and opposed by EFCC’s counsel, Fadila Yusuf.

The development followed their arraignment by the anti-graft agency on three-count charge over allegations bordering on illegal financial operations and unlicensed investment activities.

They were arraigned on amended three-count charge marked:

In the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/216/2025, the defendants were alleged to have collected public funds and promised up to 88 per cent returns on investment without regulatory approval.

In a related development, Justice Umar has also fixed July 25 for ruling on the bail application filed by Adefowora Abiodun, Managing Director of ST Technologies International Limited, allegedly using another company, CBEX, to perpetrate investment scam.

Justice Umar fixed the date after his bail application was argued, following Abiodun and his company’s arraignment on amended eight-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/215/2025.

While Abiodun is the 1st defendant, ST Technologies International Limited is named as 2nd defendant in the amended charge dated July 9.

‎The allegations, in the earlier charge, bordered on alleged case of obtaining by false pretense, money laundering and carrying on the activities of other financial institutions without having the required license from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the amended counts.

The defendants’ lawyer, Babatunde Busari, informed the court of a bail application dated and filed on Abiodun ‘s behalf on June 30.

Busari urged the judge to admit his client to bail on liberal terms.

He said the charge showed that the alleged offences against his client were bailable.

Besides, he said two critical exhibits attached to their application showed that Abiodun voluntarily submitted himself to the commission for investigation.

“He (Abiodun) came to us as counsel and we took him to the commission.

“He also has a medical report that shows that the 1st defendant requires urgent eye surgery and that has not been possible for him for the past 80 days that he has been in detention.

“We, therefore, urge the court to admit the defendant on bail as the total of the monetary claim Is about N20 million naira,” he said.

Busari prayed the court to release Abiodun to him for the purpose of bail.

But EFCC’s lawyer, Fatsuma Mohammed, vehemently opposed the bail plea, saying a counter affidavit dated July 7 was filed in respect of the motion.

The lawyer urged the court to refuse bail and order for expeditious trial of the case, adding that investigation had been concluded “and we are ready for trial.”

“Is it a bailable offence?” the judge asked.

Responding, Mohammed said: “The section consequent to which the defendant is being charged, upon conviction, is seven years and it is enough number of years which is enough for him to try to run.”

Justice Umar,who adjourned the matter until July 25 for ruling, ordered Abiodun to be remanded in the EFCC’s custody pending ruling on bail application.

NAN reports that CBEX was one of several digital platforms that collapsed after allegedly collecting billions of naira from unsuspecting investors.

NAN reports that Justice Emeka Nwite of a sister court had, on April 24, gave the EFCC the go-ahead to arrest and detain six operators of CBEX over their involvement in the fraud.

The judge, who gave the order after the EFCC’s lawyer, Fadila Yusuf, moved an ex-parte motion to the effect, said the detention would be pending the conclusion of investigation of the alleged offences and possible prosecution.

The six suspects include Adefowora Abiodun, Adefowora Oluwanisola, Emmanuel Uko, and Seyi Oloyede.
Others are Avwerosuo Otorudo and Chukwuebuka Ehirim as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.

In the motion ex-parte dated and filed April 23 by Yusuf, the anti-graft agency gave four grounds for its application.

She said the EFCC had a statutory duty of prevention and detection of financial crimes through investigation.

Yusuf said that “the defendants are at large and a warrant of arrest is required to arrest the defendants for proper investigation and prosecution of this case.”

NAN reports that Adefowora Abiodun (1st defendant), Avwerosuo Otorudo (5th defendant) and Chukwuebuka Ehirim (6th defendant) had been in the EFCC custody on investigation.

Justice Nwite had, also on June 30, declined to grant the bail application filed by the three detained alleged promoters of CBEX.

The judge, in a ruling, held it was obvious that from the totality of the affidavit evidence of both parties, it was glaring that the character of evidence against the defendants was strong.

He also held that due to the nature of the case, the EFCC obtained an order of remand of the defendants by court of competent jurisdiction.

The EFCC, in the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte filed before Justice Nwite, said sometimes in April 2025, it received an intel bothering on an alleged investment scheme fraud against the defendants.

It alleged that the defendants and their company, ST Technologies International Limited, using another company, Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX), perpetrated the alleged fraud and the case was received and assigned to its Cybercrimes Section for investigation.

The EFCC averred that the defendants promised unrealistic return on investment of up to 100%.

“That the victims were made to convert their digital assets into a stable coin of USDT for onward deposit into the suspects crypto wallet.

“That the victims were initially given full access to the platform to monitor their investment.

“That following deposits valued at over one Billion Dollars by the victims, the CBEX investment platform became inaccessible to them and they could no longer withdraw from the investment made.

“That the victims later discovered that the said scheme is a scam.

“That during the course of investigation, it was discovered that the said ST Technologies International Limited, though registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), it was not registered with the security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for investment purposes.

“That it was also discovered during investigation that the defendants had moved out of their last known address in Lagos and Ogun States.”

The anti-graft agency said that a warrant of arrest was required to place the defendants on red watch list so that they could be traced and arrested to answer to the case against them.

According to the commission, investigation into the allegation against the defendants revealed a prima facie case of investment scam.

It said it would be in the interest of justice to grant the application