Human rights lawyer Aloy Ejimakor has called on Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja to vacate the bench warrant issued against activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore. In a statement titled "Why the Bench Warrant Against Omoyele Sowore Must Be Vacated," Ejimakor argued that the circumstances surrounding the revocation of Sowore's bail and the issuance of the warrant raise serious constitutional and judicial concerns.
Allegations of Unfair Process
Ejimakor contended that the order violates principles of fair hearing and procedural justice. He noted that Justice Umar's absence from court on previous hearing dates and his ignoring of Sowore's letter requesting a change of date constituted a deliberate trap against the activist. The lawyer recalled that Sowore appeared in court on June 15, 2026, for a ruling on his recusal application, but the judge was absent despite having fixed the date.
Sequence of Events
After learning the court would not sit, Sowore informed the court registrar of his plans to travel to Lagos and submitted a formal letter requesting that subsequent dates be fixed in July, proposing July 2, 3, 14, 15, and 17. Despite this, the court arbitrarily listed the matter for the very next day, June 16. Sowore, already in Lagos, could not attend, whereupon the judge summarily revoked his bail and issued a bench warrant against him.
Ejimakor argued that this sequence of events reflected a denial of procedural fairness. He warned that judicial discretion exercised without regard to constitutional safeguards could erode confidence in the rule of law. According to the lawyer, the Constitution guarantees fair hearing and requires courts to allow litigants an opportunity to explain their absence before imposing sanctions such as bail revocation or the issuance of bench warrants.
Criticism of the Judge's Actions
Ejimakor noted that the chain of events began with Justice Umar's own absence from the June 15 proceedings. "Keep in mind that the causal chain in this saga started with the Judge's absence in a hearing the Judge himself scheduled for June 15, and at which Sowore was dutifully present. Despite this glaring fact that the Judge himself was the first to default, his Lordship added salt to injury by totally discountenancing Sowore's letter that clearly justified his absence from court the next day on June 16," he said.
The lawyer maintained that revocation of bail and issuance of bench warrants are not automatic consequences of non-appearance in court. Such actions require proof that the defendant deliberately failed to appear and that proper notice had been given.
