Legal practitioner Bolaji Oluwatosin has raised concerns over the decision of the Federal High Court to revoke the bail of activist and politician Omoyele Sowore and issue a bench warrant for his arrest while an application seeking the recusal of the presiding judge was still pending.
In an opinion article, Oluwatosin argued that although courts possess the authority to grant or revoke bail, such powers must be exercised fairly, judiciously, and in line with established legal procedures. He referenced previous appellate court decisions which held that judicial discretion must not be applied arbitrarily.
According to him, the matter was scheduled for a ruling on an application requesting Justice Mohammed Umar to step aside from the case. However, despite Sowore’s appearance in court on the appointed date, proceedings did not take place. Following the failed sitting, Sowore reportedly wrote to the court registry seeking clarification on a new hearing date.
The lawyer maintained that when a court fails to sit on a scheduled day, parties are entitled to receive notice of any new date before proceedings continue. He argued that revoking bail and issuing a bench warrant without evidence of disobedience, absconding, or breach of bail conditions raises important questions about due process.
Oluwatosin further contended that since the judge’s impartiality had been formally challenged through the recusal application, it would have been more appropriate to determine that issue before making orders that directly affected the defendant’s liberty.
He also questioned the necessity of a bench warrant, noting that Sowore’s whereabouts were publicly known and that he had consistently appeared in court throughout the proceedings.
According to the legal commentator, the central issue is not whether the court had the authority to act, but whether that authority was exercised in a manner consistent with fair hearing, proper notice, and judicial restraint.
