The bail hearing of activist, Justice Crack, was on Thursday, stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja following a disagreement among members of his legal team over who should lead the defence.
The development forced the withdrawal of an earlier bail application filed on behalf of the activist, prompting the court to adjourn the matter till Monday, May 18, for the hearing of a fresh application.
Speaking with journalists after proceedings, counsel to the activist, Femi Balogun, accused another lawyer in the defence team, Marshall Abubakar, of frustrating the bail process after being prevented from leading the case.
Balogun said he was directed by the family of the activist to take charge of the matter because he was a senior at the Bar.
According to him, Abubakar, who filed the original bail application, insisted on leading the defence despite the presence of senior lawyers.
He said, “Today the matter was supposed to be for the hearing of the bail application. However, I was directed by the family to lead in respect of the matter for today.
“I was with Marshall at the last court sitting, but Marshall is my junior. I’m a senior at the bar. There were some other senior counsels at the last time, but he insisted on leading everyone despite the fact that in law, there’s seniority at the bar.”
Balogun alleged that Abubakar subsequently applied to withdraw the bail application because he was not allowed to lead the proceedings.
“But today, I insisted that I have to lead based on the fact that the family has directed me to lead. But Marshall, in his vindictive way, applied to strike out the bail application on the basis that he’s not leading, which is unfair,” he said.
He described the decision as contrary to the interest of justice, arguing that disagreements among lawyers should not prevent the defendant from pursuing his liberty.
“Ordinarily, if he’s doing this for justice, for the interest of justice, I don’t see a reason, even if you are not the counsel leading, why you should withdraw the bail application you have filed for the person to enjoy his liberty,” Balogun added.
However, Abubakar gave a different account of events, insisting that he merely complied with the court’s directive after another lawyer suddenly announced his appearance in the matter.
According to him, he had been leading the defence from the onset and had personally initiated efforts to secure the activist’s release.
Abubakar disclosed that he had written to the Attorney-General of the Federation seeking discontinuance of the case and had also met with activist Omoyele Sowore, officials of the Federal Ministry of Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation over the matter.
“I was the one who wrote to the Minister of Justice to discontinue this matter. I, alongside Mr Omoyele Sowore and some comrades, met with the Minister of Justice, the DPPF and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice to see that we get Justice released,” he stated.
He said the dispute arose after another lawyer appeared in court without prior notice and announced an appearance on behalf of the defendant.
“But unfortunately, in court today, another lawyer appeared in court and said that he had the instructions of some persons to lead or represent Justice Crack,” he said.
Abubakar maintained that legal practice required the new counsel to first notify him before taking over the matter.
“If there’s another lawyer in a matter, and I intend to proceed with the prosecution of that matter, the duty is on me to approach that lawyer and say I have the instructions of so and so person to prosecute this matter,” he said.
He added that he took up the matter pro bono after being contacted by the activist’s wife.
“It was the wife of Justice Crack that reached out to me to represent her husband. It was on that basis that I took up this matter pro bono. I have never taken a kobo from anybody in respect of this matter,” he stated.
According to him, the judge noted that he led proceedings at the previous sitting and subsequently gave him the option of withdrawing his appearance.
“The judge said, ‘Marshall, you have a choice, are you going to withdraw your appearance?’ And I said, ‘My Lord, in view of what has transpired, I respectfully withdraw my appearance.’
“Once you withdraw appearance in a matter, the consequential orders must be made, which includes that every process we’ve filed in that matter goes with it. Once you withdraw, the application goes,” he said.
Balogun, however, maintained that the court had no option but to strike out the application following the withdrawal request and adjourned the matter till Monday, May 18, for a fresh bail application to be heard.
He also disclosed that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, had taken over the prosecution of the case from the Department of State Services.
The PUNCH reports that Justice Crack was earlier remanded in prison custody by the court over a viral video allegedly criticising the Nigerian Army’s feeding arrangements.
The activist was arraigned on charges said to border on cyber-related offences.
One of the charges against him read, “That you, CHIDIEBERE JUSTICE MARK, adult, male, of Plot 88 Sabon-Lugbe, Abuja, on or about the 28th day of April, 2026, in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, did circulate information to the public through your social media handle @JusticeCrack, regarding alleged inadequate feeding of Nigerian Army personnel, which you know the said information to be false but posted it for the purpose of causing annoyance, ill will, and hatred, especially among the citizens who hold divergent views and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 24(1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015, as amended.”
The case has continued to attract public attention, with supporters describing the prosecution as an attempt to suppress dissent, while authorities insist the charges are in line with existing laws regulating online publications.
