Sowore Planned To Topple Government-DSS Witness

The trial of the #RevolutionNow founder Omoleye Sowore and Bakare on Wednesday was adjourned by the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja to April after a prosecution witness revealed the accused planned to topple the government through a revolution.

The federal government is prosecuting the duo on an amended charge of treasonable felony.

But they had pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Justice Ifeoma Ojukwu presided over the trial.

Christian Imi represented the prosecution with four other counsels while Femi Falana and Olumide represented the first and second defendant, alongside Abdul Mahmud and Abubakar Marshal.

The prosecution presented a witness by name Rasheed Olawale, a Department of State Service(DSS) official.

According to the witness, he was a principal officer in charge of surveillance and communication intelligence, Lagos command.

The witness said that Sowore tried to overthrow the government through procession.

“Prior to the day of arrest, we received an intelligence report, that the convener of Revolution Now planned to carry out a revolution by revolting along with his associates, against the Democratic government of the federal republic of Nigeria throughout the whole nation.

“Furthermore, at Maryland, he was there with his associates, making graphic inscription on the wall of Maryland bridge tagged ‘Revolution Now’ and ‘Days of Rage’,” he said.

But Falana objected, adding that the witness is speaking outside his written statement.

“We urge the Honorable court to limit the witness to his statement,” Falana said.

But the prosecution said that the written statement of the witness was just a summary, adding that the law allows the witness to testify about what he knows.

“My lord, discountenance the objection of Falana, ” he added.

But Falana said that the court had ruled that the counsels should be provided with full statements and not a summary.

Falana also said that a criminal trial like the case at hand could lead to life imprisonment, if one is convicted, hence, the defendant needed the full written statement.

Justice Ojukwu said the prosecution had said that the written testimony was the exact statement.

The prosecution, however, said that he could not limit the testimonies of the witness to the written statement, because some of the testimonies were in favour of the defendant.

But the judge urged the prosecution to serve the defence counsel with the full evidence of the witness.

“Go back and reproduce your evidence,” she said.

The prosecution asked the court for time to do the needful, adding that they would need two weeks.

“Please use this opportunity to do all that you need to do,” Ojukwu responded and adjourned till 1 and 2, April.

One of the prosecution counsels, AK. Aliu also told the court that the relevant documents for the trial were served on Sowore and Falana since December 2019.

According to the prosecution, the documents included CDs of Sowore’s Revolution protest, campaign and financial interview of Sowore.

But the second defence counsel said the prosecution was misleading the court as they were just served 20 CDs Wednesday morning.

But the prosecution said that the 20 CDs were just additional documents and that the defendants were earlier served with 6 documents.

But the judge told the prosecution that the point was that they did not serve them all the documents at once.

The prosecution also reminded the judge about a motion filed on 5 March, seeking for the protection of the witnesses in the case.

“The witnesses expressed fear and I was directed to file a motion for their protection sir,” he said.

“My Lord, to confirm that we are ready, three of the witnesses are in this court,” he added.

But the second defendant counsel, A. Olumide objected, adding that the prosecution was playing games with the court having realized that they had no case in the matter.

“They charged us to court and they realized that the case is empty.

“The game they are playing is very clear, they have turned this court to a Hollywood drama.

“We vehemently oppose any adjournment,” he added.

The judge adjourned because the witnesses were saying things separate from their written statements.The judge told the prosecution to put all evidence in the statement