Alleged Cybercrime: Sowore’s Counsel Admits Ignorance Of The Evidence Act

…Court to rule on DSS counsel’s subpoena

A member of the legal team of online publisher and presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Treasure Adefisoye, on Monday, told a Federal High Court in Abuja that she’s not aware of the provision of Section 83;3 of the Evidence Act.

The lawyer made the admission while responding to questions from the lead prosecution counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, after she sought to tender printouts of online reports purporting that the Department of State Services, DSS, was considering pausing Sowore’s cyber-bullying trial until after the January 16, 2027, presidential election.

Sowore recently opened his defence in a charge of alleged cyber-bullying brought against him by the DSS, accusing him of calling President Bola Tinubu a “criminal” in an August 2025 post on his social media handles.

At the continuation of Sowore’s defence, on Monday, Adefisoye,
while responding to a question on the Evidence Act by counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, told the court that she’s not very conversant with the Evidence Act.

Adefisoye is a member of Sowore’s legal team led by Olumide Fusika, SAN.
The defence had sought the leave of the court to tender copies of the printouts of the media reports.

Responding, Kehinde, SAN, who objected to the admissibility of the printed documents, asked the defence lawyer if she was aware of the provision of Section 83:3 of the Evidence Act, to which she said “no.”

At this point, the lead Prosecution lawyer asked Adefisoye to read out Section 83:3 of the Evidence Act.
The lawyer read out the Section which states that any document made during the pendency of a matter cannot be tendered in evidence in the same matter.
Also on Monday, the court adjourned to Tuesday to rule on the objection raised by the DSS against calling its lead prosecuting counsel by subpoena to testify as a defence witness for Sowore.

The Prosecution told the court that the subpoena was in bad faith, diversionary and contrary to the law and all known judicial practice.
After listening to both lawyers, Justice Muhammad Umar adjourned to Tuesday to rule on the objection raised by the Prosecution on the subpoena by the defence.