BREAKING: ‘He’s A Biased Judge’ – Drama As Sowore Clashes With Justice Liman Over Ray Ban Eyeglasses
There was a dramatic confrontation on Tuesday between Omoyele Sowore and Justice Musa Suleiman Liman, ignited by a disagreement over Sowore’s high-tech eyeglasses, before delving into the substance of the cybercrime case against him.
The tension rose when Justice Liman, presiding over the case, raised concerns about the glasses, suggesting they might have recording devices hidden inside. The judge questioned whether the glasses contained a built-in camera, prompting an immediate response from Sowore.
Sowore, visibly frustrated, firmly rebutted the judge’s inquiry, explaining that the glasses were both medicated and AI-enabled, designed to aid his vision. He criticized the question as unnecessary and inappropriate, calling attention to the judge’s apparent lack of understanding of modern technology.
Sowore, a former presidential candidate, also took the opportunity to address what he perceived as judicial overreach, specifically criticizing the denial of his passport application. Sowore accused Justice Liman of not grasping the capabilities of modern technology, suggesting that the judge’s decision to deny his passport was rooted in a lack of technological knowledge or, worse, an intentional attempt to restrict his freedom of movement.
The exchange quickly escalated, with the judge insisting that Sowore remove the glasses for the hearing to continue. Justice Liman further expressed that the glasses’ design, in his view, was distracting, and insisted that they be removed to avoid disrupting the proceedings.
Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, intervened and after a brief discussion with his client, agreed to comply with the judge’s request. The glasses were removed, and the hearing resumed, but the courtroom had already been set abuzz with the back-and-forth between the judge and the defendant.
After the dramatic moment over the glasses, the court heard testimony from a police officer attached to the Force Headquarters in Abuja, who shed light on the surveillance of Sowore’s social media activities.
The officer, an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), explained that he had been directed by the Force Public Relations Officer, ACP Olumuyiwa Adejobi, to monitor Sowore’s online presence following his public criticism of Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kayode Egbetokun.
The officer’s testimony revealed that the surveillance began after Sowore’s social media post calling for the IGP’s resignation went viral, attracting widespread public attention and reactions from Nigerians across the country. The ASP clarified that after bringing Sowore’s post to the attention of ACP Adejobi, the Force PRO had instructed him to monitor Sowore’s social media accounts and observe the comments under his posts.
Sowore, who was referred to as the “AAC Presidential aspirant” by the officer, had been vocal in his criticism of the IGP, the officer added.
However, the police witness did not specify whether this surveillance was still ongoing, leaving the court with a lingering question about the extent of the monitoring.
As the testimony continued, Sowore’s defense lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, raised an objection, asserting that the case against his client was fundamentally flawed and violated both judicial and jurisdictional principles. Abubakar argued that the case should not proceed further, pointing out that the court had yet to address the preliminary objections filed by the defense. He questioned the legality of the case and insisted that it was inappropriate to proceed with cross-examination until the objections were resolved. Despite Abubakar’s objections, the court adjourned the matter until June 23, 2025, to allow the defense time to respond to the police witness’s testimony and further argue their objections.
Outside the court, Sowore continued to express his frustration with the judiciary, accusing the Nigerian legal system of being complicit in suppressing his rights and freedoms.
He criticized what he saw as a coordinated effort between the judiciary, police, and other branches of government to deny Nigerians access to justice.
Sowore specifically referenced the rejection of his application for the temporary release of his passport, which he intended to use to visit his family in the United States.
He lamented the state of the Nigerian judiciary, questioning how anyone could have faith in a system that, in his view, operated under the influence of political interests.
Sowore also took the opportunity to remind the public of his previous legal battles, particularly the five years he spent facing treason charges, which were eventually dropped without any formal explanation.
He reflected on the fact that during that time, he was restricted to Abuja by court order, and his passport was seized for five years.
The human rights activist accused the authorities of continuing their pattern of judicial overreach, claiming that the current case was another example of the system trying to suppress his voice and restrict his movement. Sowore insisted that the case, like his previous legal troubles, was politically motivated and should never have reached the courtroom.
