Sowore Clashes with SAN in Abuja Court Over Journalists’ Access
Activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore found himself at the centre of a courtroom drama at the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 24, 2026, when he clashed with a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) over media access. The incident unfolded as Sowore attempted to address journalists inside the courtroom, prompting a confrontation that has since gone viral online.
A video circulating on social media shows the SAN confronting Sowore, insisting that the courtroom is not an appropriate venue for press briefings.
Sowore, however, stood his ground, challenging the lawyer’s authority and asserting his right to speak to the press.
“You’re intimidating me and insulting my intelligence because you’re introducing yourself to me as a SAN. I also have my own SANs,” he stated firmly.
The activist argued that no Nigerian law explicitly prohibits addressing journalists inside the court, claiming that his interaction with the media is part of exercising his constitutional rights.
Courtroom Tensions Rise Over Press Briefings
The SAN countered Sowore’s position, emphasising that courtrooms are meant to serve as venues of justice rather than platforms for media engagements.
“I have practised for close to three decades and have never seen this happen,” the lawyer said, urging journalists to move outside the court premises for interviews.
“The court must serve as a venue of justice, not a conference,” the SAN added, highlighting concerns that such activities could disrupt proceedings or compromise decorum within the courtroom.
The tension between the activist and the senior lawyer highlights the delicate balance between media freedom and judicial protocol in Nigeria.
Observers note that Sowore’s defiance underscores the growing assertiveness of civil society actors in holding institutions accountable while simultaneously testing the limits of courtroom access for the press.
Media Access and Legal Boundaries
This incident brings to the fore ongoing debates about media access in Nigerian courts. Legal practitioners have long emphasised that courtrooms are spaces primarily for adjudicating disputes, while press interactions are typically expected to occur outside the court.
However, civil society advocates argue that controlled engagement with journalists can enhance transparency, especially in high-profile cases involving public interest figures.
Sowore’s confrontation with the SAN is seen as a test case for defining the boundaries between press freedom and courtroom decorum in Nigeria.
Experts warn that while the law protects the right to communicate with the press, this must be balanced against rules designed to preserve order in court proceedings.
Legal analysts note that any future regulatory measures will likely consider both constitutional rights and the operational needs of the judiciary.
Implications for Public Accountability
The viral video of the confrontation has ignited discussions on social media about the role of activists in monitoring judicial processes and ensuring public awareness of ongoing trials.
Many Nigerians expressed support for Sowore’s insistence on transparency, while others sided with the SAN’s call for maintaining order in court.
The clash also underscores the broader challenges of ensuring accountability in the Nigerian legal system. High-profile cases often attract media attention, and courts must navigate the tension between openness and procedural propriety.
As Sowore continues to assert his rights, legal observers anticipate further guidance from judicial authorities on media engagement protocols. The outcome of this debate could set a precedent for how journalists and public figures interact with the press during court proceedings.
While the immediate conflict has been resolved with journalists directed to conduct interviews outside the courtroom, the incident serves as a reminder of the evolving dynamics between civil society, the media, and Nigeria’s legal institutions.
For now, the spotlight remains on the Abuja Federal High Court, where Sowore’s legal matters continue to unfold, and where the balance between press freedom and courtroom decorum will remain under scrutiny.